VW 262,.B.7/;, 











¥e 


t 


Sines. a4 
. 


~ 








_ Eee rere aK. ‘ae, | 
METHODIST CHURCH PROPERTY CAS 















“s — » ‘ 
Sas rn 2 F 
* * 
ee. o ; 
* 7 ” ? 
aso Se  -Report of the Suit of 
a z re ? gh 
‘ 
oe a " a 
HENRY B. BASCOM, AND, OTHERS, 
US. 
GEORGE LANE, anp OTHERS, 
° “HEARD BEFORE . 
THE HON. JUDGES NELSON AND BETTS, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, UNITED STAT 
FOR) THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW-YORK, MAY 17-29, 1851. 
* Ad 
. By R. SUTTON, i ee ey 
. LEAL ee ely 


SPECIAL AND CONGRESSIONAL peed ge F 


, ayy, te 
a” wa) Jo 
s q ‘ ; 
<4 Ro ee ‘ 
¢. A Ve 
x 2 he \ 
: : 
45\\ a wi 
mw 


New-Dork: 
PUBLISHED BY LANE & SCOTT, 
200 MULBERRY-STREET. er 


JOSEPH LONGKING, PRINTER. 
1851. 














S05 hmv raldn te 


_* 


egret Taya 
do si of 8 baat . < 


P tae “‘ges * 
gaa geen wove kad panain 
eo paint nogn SBei ke 2a haber Paget atts 


Gane 15 ann nearer HOTORD aa. 
se ee sbnaea EE 4 mien 


¥ 4 


4 LOLOS® "ont 2 
, 


aia ieee X. ae z. oe a anal * A Woot 
* ak, i i 


~ 


Anes M2 tom Fits wen " ees Pee Re eT OR AOE” 


ce CP) OPED SO AM 2G Ay: 


“ aasqots JANGISAYS 9S ane doae. 


Seve alt 


i me 


ie eo gee Waadow, 
| idl - fet : ot rey 


dio a9 Ga tod Sten ware ax Jee oy RA HORT ae wn wine ce 











- 
* 
* : 


% 
he 
ADVERTISEMENT. | 
eae 
7 | ae 
Tuts Report, yube was agreed upon by both parties to the 


suit, is published, with their common sanction, by the 
» 


Book Agents at New-York and Richmond. , 


* al 













| ; ? 
: ‘ . bay 
. b ~Ayh ft ‘ ool « # 
‘, ; UWPETM TATA ES f as 
me : Pai, 


odf ot H4Ringg dod yd sogur Hoergs enw iirtw Sioqodl otal 
, # 


a 


adi yd- wollomes seams tiodt diiw. fiodaddog ai pile 


hudadeit bas ao Y-wet ia aiaogd soak 
’ ’ 


‘ wf 
pon " 
of : ihe . : 
‘ ' ‘. 
my 
. ¢ “d i 
a re s 7 fy wae 
‘ ” ’ ? i ¥ 
&. 
; j t 
4 ; + ’ re 
; ¥ > 
Ws # ne 
ve if 
P ich Wa 2 . , of Bove 
he std ra e 1 tits 
ae 4 r % i * #01) * 
ee" i « 
bi eee . Fy, ¥ ry yiay 4 
| WANS Bio) a * 
Ay , ‘ 
fn 
: + ’ > 
X : ‘ 4 
i - 
4 my; ‘ 
. % 
. wt “ , cy a wt 








2 
Sos 





CIRCUIT COURT, UNITED STATES. 


FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW-YORK. 








THE Hon. JUDGES NELSON anp BETTS, Presrprine. 


HENRY B. BASCOM, and others, 
vs. In Equity. 
GEORGE LANE, and others. 


Counsel for Plaintiffs, 
Mr. D. LORD Hon. REVERDY JOHNSON, and Mr. JOHNSON, Jr. 


Counsel for Defendants, 
Hon. RUFUS CHOATE, Mr. GEORGE WOOD, and Mr. E. L. FANCHER. 


FIRST DAY.—Monpay, May 19, 1851. 


Mr. Lorp.—May ir PLease your Honours,—In opening a case of this magnitude 
and importance, I feel that it is incumbent on me to give a brief detail before reading 
the papers, in order that these papers, and the whole subject, may be more easily 
understood. In our ordinary controversies we need no such preliminary ; but we 
are now investigating the concerns of a religious denomination, and this controversy 
will relate to matters which are not of general information. The Court, therefore, 
will indulge me in the endeavour to state some of the general facts and circum- 
stances out of which the controversy arises, particularly with the view of having an 
accurate definition of the subjects which will constantly recur in the reading of 
_ the papers. 

The subject of this controversy is what is called, among gentlemen of this denomi- 
nation, their “‘ Book Concern.’’? This is a fund which, upon the papers, appears to 
amount to some $750,000. The origin and history of it seem to be this :—Upon 
the earliest establishment of the Methodist denomination by Mr. Wesley, he called 
to his aid the press in the dissemination of religious truth; and when Methodism 
was first introduced into this country, books were provided from England, to supply 
the wants of its very few adherents in regard to religious literature. Upon the 
independence of this country, the Methodist denomination had become measurably 
numerous, though not large. When it was organized as a separate Church, in 
addition to the means of instruction afforded by preaching, it was very obvious that 
a great want was to be supplied in the furnishing of religious literature to its people ; 
and one of their preachers organized a system of publishing books in this country, 
It was originally established in Philadelphia. This preacher, whose name I think 

1 


2 


was Cooper, lent a small sum of money to the object, and invested it in books. 
They were sold among the denomination; and out of the profits a small capital was 
gradually formed, which was employed in publishing books. This came to be a 
matter of some magnitude; and in the year 1836 it had been removed to this city, 
and become an extensive establishment. It had undergone considerable vicissitudes ; 
but at that period it was emerging from its difficulties, and becoming a great esta- 
blishment. It was then destroyed by fire. It was afterward reinvigorated, as 
everything in this city seems to have been by the fires of that period; and from that 
time to the present it has gone on with great prosperity, so that it has accumulated 
a capital of about $750,000. 

The manner in which these books were circulated will perhaps be worthy of your 
Honours’ attention in the history and consideration of this case. It was early pro- 
vided that the preachers should see that their congregations were supplied with 
books. They took the books from the publishing establishment, and sold them: and 
in that way there was in fact a real, substantial, and beneficial monopoly in the fur- 
nishing of religious books, and all the preachers were agents in carrying it out. 
They v cre very faithful men—stimulated, not by the love of gain, but by the higher 
pu:cose of religious devotion. Of course, a fund thus constructed could not but 
become very considerable. Your Honours will have your attention called to the 
fact that it was really the result of the devotion and services of the preachers. It 
was not, like many charitable funds, a fund growing out of donations of wealthy 
men; but it was, in its main features, the earnings of this system. Its profits, after 
providing capital enough to carry on its business successfully, were devoted at an 
early period to one single purpose in two or three branches :—That purpose was, 
the making up of the deficiencies in the salaries of travelling preachers, and provid- 
ing for the supernumerary, superannuated preachers, the wives and children of 
preachers, and the widows and orphans of deceased preachers. The number of 
these appear regularly on the Minutes of the General Conference of this society. 
That, therefore, was the destination of the profits of this fund; for it was no object 
to accumulate capital for the mere purposes of accumulation. 

It is now necessary that I should introduce another subject—the conferences of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church—because they become very important, vitally im- 
portant, to be understood in this controversy. The concerns of the Methodist 
Church are managed by what are called Annual and General Conferences. At the 
introduction of Methodism into this country, its preachers were not very numerous. 
Although the extent of country was great, there were in all but seven annual con- 
ferences. I ought, perhaps, to explain what the annual conferences are. Originally 
all the preachers of this denomination met every year, and disposed of that which 
was general in their concerns. The conferences consisted of travelling preachers, 
who served particular districts of country, somewhat analogous to the division of 
districts in our judicial system. Originally the whole of Methodism in the United 
States was but one conference, and consisted of but a small number of preachers. 
In 1784 that was the case. But it very soon became necessary to divide this con- 
ference. It was divided ; but, although a*division, in fact it was a multiplication 
also. At first ‘i.e annual conference was in fact the General Conference of the Metho- 
dist Church ; then the earliest formed from this were the Philadelphia and New-York 
Conferences. As the territory increased, these annual conferences were divided, and 
formed new bodies ; until in 1844, which is the period at which we shall arrive, there 
were something like thirty-two or thirty-three annual conferences. These annual 
conferences had a general oversight of the Churches; they examined the character 
of the preachers, the working of the system, and reports were yearly made to them 


1* 


3 


of the deficiencies of the funds raised in the districts to supply their preachers. 
Every two years preachers were changed from one congregation to another. Collec- 
tions were taken up in these various congregations to supply the preachers. Their 
salaries were very small; the people, to a great extent, poor. Many of these dis- 
tricts could not quite pay their preachers. ‘These deficiencies were reported to the 
annual conferences, and supplied out of their funds. That will show your Honours 
what we mean when we come to speak by-and-by of the “deficiencies” of the 
travelling preachers. That means the deficiencies in funds supplied by poorer con- 
gregations to pay their own preachers ; for it is a part of the economy of this Church 
that the richer portions of the country should supply the wants of the poorer, and 
the clergy always be kept on a footing of absolute equality. Every four years these 
annual conferences met in a General Conference. This General Conference was the 
general legislative body of this Church, and all matters of general concern were there 
considered. They established articles of religion; they made changes in the religion 
and economy of the Church. Every year when they separated, they published a 
new book of discipline, which contained the doctrines of the Church, and that super- 
seded everything which had gone before, and became the law of the Church as to 
organization, discipline, and doctrine. This was therefore the act of the Church in 
the most absolute sense. This was the state of things from the organization of 
Methodism in this country in 1784, up to 1808. In 1808 the body had become so 
numerous, and its power was so absolute, that the more conservative men in the 
Church were a little alarmed at the extent of it ; because it will appear in its history 
that it was considered capable of changing the articles of religion, and it was consi- 
dered dangerous that such a body, which might be attended by more members from 
nearer, and less from more distant conferences, should have such great powers. In 
1808 a change was made in the organization of the General Conference. They 
resolved that the General Conference should consist of delegations from each annual 
conference. It was, therefore, the general body of the Methodist Church, met toge- 
ther in the form of its ministers, but only by committees. Instead of being a 
meeting of the whole absolutely, it was a meeting of the whole by delegations. At 
that period provision was made against the absolute power which this body possessed, 
and there were various “ restrictive rules,”’ so called, established to limit it. Those 
restrictions were to this effect ; and the extent of the powers of that body, as it existed 
before, and, indeed, as we say, continued to exist, will appear by the character of 
these restrictions. Our view of the powers of that body is, that they were equally 
unlimited with those of previous General Conferences, except so far as these restric- 
tions restrained them. One of the restrictions was, that they should not change 
the articles of religion ; another that they should not change their hierarchy ; another, 
that they should not change the degree of representation. That is, supposing the 
delegation be one out of every eight in the annual conferences, that ratio should not 
be changed by the General Conference. Another was, that they should not change 
what were called the rules of the United Societies. The United Societies are eccle- 
siastical organizations of the members of the Churches, with rules which govern 
them in their relations with one another, with the world, and in regard to religious 
observances. It was provided that the General Conference should not make a 
change with regard to the mode of trial of members and preachers ; and the last, the 
sixth restrictive rule, (which is the one which will most come before your Honours’ 
attention,) provided that they should never apply the profits of this Book Concern 
to any other purpose than that of supplying the deficiencies of the travelling, and 
providing for the supernumerary, superannuated preachers, their wives and children, 
and the widows and orphans of such as were deceased. There was one provision 


4 


over-riding the whole—that upon the request of three-fourths of the annual confer- 
ences, sanctioned by a vote of the General Conference, these restrictive rules might 
be varied, but without this primary vote of the Church they could not be changed. 
That presents to your Honours the subject of the general and annual conferences ; 
and a great question in this case will arise upon the character and power of the 
General Conference, and the instruction and effect of that sixth restrictive rule. 

I now come to the particular controversy in this case. It is one in relation to 
which the excitement at this time and in this country is great. It grew out of the 
existence of slavery. Very early the Methodists, both on the subject of temperance 
and of slavery, took a ground, the highest and most exclusive ; and one of the rules 
of the United Societies (which are the particular, and private, and domestic organiza- 
tions of Churches composing the denomination) was, that no person should belong to 
them who bought men and women with the view of reducing them to slavery. As 
we suppose, that originally had reference to the slave-trade as a matter of commerce 
which was then carried on. But very soon it was evident that this Society viewed it 
in a larger aspect, and in one of the earlier conferences a rule of a very extreme 
character was adopted. It was at a conference which began at Baltimore in Decem- 
ber, 1784, which is known as the ‘“ Christmas Conference.” They adopted a rule 
quite exclusive on the subject of slavery, not merely as to the buying and selling of 
men and women, but in the most severe form and manner, compelling the manumis- 
sion of slaves. That threatened to become so destructive to the Society, in its 
attempts to penetrate the Southern and Western parts of the country, which were 
considered the most open fields for the operation of the Methodist principles, that at 
the first meeting of the conference afterwards, the very next year, the rule was 
suspended, and in the next book of discipline it was omitted. From time to time 
rules were adopted in this Church, sometimes of a more stringent, and sometimes of 
a more lax character, on the subject of holding slaves. The Church, North and 
South, always considered slavery an evil; that is, that_it would have been better if 
no such thing had ever existed. They, however, treated it as one of the evils among 
them, and conformed their religious discipline on the subject to the laws of the 
various States ; so that it was declared that no person should hold any office in the 
Church who did not manumit his slaves, when the laws of his State permitted it. If 
the State did not permit it, the holding of slaves was not to be a subject of official or 
personal reproach. ‘They provided also that their preachers should teach the 
members of their Churches to instruct their slaves; showing that they took the 
practical view of this as a thing to be dealt with as existing, and which it was not 
in the power of any man, or body of men, clerical or lay, by their wishes to destroy. 

About the year 1836, the agitation, which has been called “ abolitionism,” began 
in this country. In 1840, it began seriously to disturb the peace of the Methodist 
Church. In that year a case arose from one of the Baltimore Conferences, which 
gave very serious concern and alarm to the conservative members of the General 
Conference ; and the bishops and conference, in their action on it, gave it what I 
would call a “‘ go-by.””. They avoided dealing with it in its strength, and expressed 
conservative and soothing opinions, recommending to all the avoiding of any agitation 
of so destructive and distressing a question. From that time until the meeting of 
the General Conference in 1844, this agitation raged among the Northern and North- 
‘Western conferences, and had, of course, produced a reaction at the South. In 1844, 
the thing became exceedingly rife, and presented itself in the General Conference of 
that year in a form which was decisive. And it will be one of the objects of the 
papers which we shall read, and the argument we shall present, to show that a state 
of things occurred which made necessary the separation of this Church into two parts. 


5 


It seems that the Baltimore Conference, which lies on a line between the North 
and the South, took ground with the more ultra persons in the North, There was a 
preacher named Harding, who, by marriage or inheritance, acquired one or two slaves 
which, by the laws of Maryland, he could not emancipate. This circumstance was 
brought very early to the attention of the General Conference of 1844, in connexion 
with a vast number of petitions from New-England, Western New-York, and other 
places, on the question of slavery. It came up in an appellate form. The Baltimore 
Conference had suspended this clergyman, degraded him, in fact, on account of this 
connexion with slavery. It was in vain urged that his connexion with the slaves was 
such that he could not manumit them. 


Hon. Reverpy Jounson.—In fact they were not his. 


Mr. Lorp.—The Conference determined that they would degrade him for that con- 
nexion, though the slaves were not his. He appealed to the General Conference, 
and there the question was discussed with great animation and great ability, and the 
sentence of degradation was confirmed. 

The matter, however, then took a still graver aspect. One of the bishops, a 
gentleman of Georgia, was in a somewhat similar position. He had one slave left 
him, on condition that he should liberate her and send her to Liberia, with her 
consent. But she would not go to Liberia, and the bishop remained her owner. She 
lived where she pleased, but still remained legally a slave ; and, as it was said, she 
might have been sold for his debts, and he made liable for her support. He also, 
through inheritance from a former wife, had a slave whom he could not manumit. 
Also upon his second marriage, his lady had some slaves which he could not 
manumit ; indeed they were secured to her by marriage settlement. This was his 
connexion with slavery. In every other respect he was blameless. Everything 
estimable was conceded to him. But the spirit of agitation was rife; it had been 
warmed up in the Conference by the debates on the Baltimore case ; and nothing 
would do but that this bishop should be dealt with. But it was a matter of some 
delicacy to deal with the bishop. Should he be tried? for there was a provision for 
the trial of bishops ; and if he should be tried and condemned, he would not only be 
degraded from the episcopacy, but expelled from the Church. They did not venture 
to go against this man in that way. A course was taken which, if this had not been 
a religious body, sincerely adherent to religious principles, (however, we may deem 
them mistaken,) would have been regarded as debasing. I will not characterize it 
otherwise than as a queer sort of proceeding. ‘They resolved to request Bishop 
Andrew to desist from all action as a bishop, during the existence of his connexion 
with slavery ; which was very much the same as if Congress, or any body that should 
assume to itself such an office, should say that one of your Honours venturing to take 
a little wine at dinner should be requested never to act as Judge until you chose to 
abstain. In other words, without a crime which could be tried, on a matter of mere 
expediency they requested this bishop to cease to be a bishop. And it was fol- 
lowed up by several circumstances at that Conference, unintentional I am persuaded, 
which gave effect to this degradation, and which are rarely to be seen in such 
cases. 

It seems that after every General Conference they republished their Discipline, 
Hymn Book, and some publications that were of a character to be renewed. It was 
put, as a question, What should become of the name of Bishop Andrew? Should 
it be put in the Hymn Book? The vote of the Conference was that it should; so 
that in every Methodist congregation there should appear to the children, while 


6 


turning over the leaves of the Hymn Books as their parents were singing, the name 
of Bishop Andrew. ‘The question would be, What is the matter with Bishop An- 
drew? In that way, unintentionally, this degradation was made in the most con- 
spicuous manner in which I think it could be. At that period there was a new 
election of bishops, and when other Reverend gentlemen acted in the consecration, 
Bishop Andrew, who was on the spot,* a man of unblemished character, against - 
whom no shadow of imputation rested, was excluded; at least, having been re- 
quested to suspend his duties, he could not with decency act. 

This, as your Honours may see, was the declaration of a permanent purpose, 
which it was very evident to the gentlemen of the Southern Conference, prevented 
them from prosecuting in harmony the objects which the Church had in view—as 
they define it—the spreading of Christian holiness over these lands ; for it was evi- 
dent, these principles being assented to, that this Church must be extinct in the 
Southern States. The gentlemen from the Southern States made a declaration to 
the Conference of 1844, that such would be the effect of these measures being taken. 
They also made a protest, which will be presented and read, giving very fully their 
views on this subject. That protest was followed by a reply on the other side, 
which gave the views of the majority. That, I presume, will also be laid before 
the Court, and you will see whether or not there had not arisen a state of things in 
which, as the delegates of the South expressed it, the Church was already divided. 
This became apparent to some gentlemen of wisdom in that Conference ; and it was 
moved to appoint a committee for the purpose of determining whether there could 
not be a division of the Church into two bodies, so that they might go on separate 
from each other, in pursuit of the same objects, with the same organization, only, as 
a Methodist writer, an English gentleman, expressed it, ‘‘ Whereas this year it was 
the province of Canterbury, next year it might be the provinces of Canterbury and 
York.” A plan of division was presented, underwent discussion, and was adopted 
by alarge vote. It was in substance this :—That if the Southern conferences should 
find it necessary, they might organize themselves into a separate and independent 
Methodist Church at the South, and in that event commissioners were appointed to 
deal with regard to the distribution of the funds. That was made the occasion, in 
connexion with the constitutional scruples of some gentlemen, of the question, whe- 
ther they would have a right to give to the Southern body of the Church their share 
of the Book Concern without an alteration of the restrictive articles. A provision 
was made that this fund should be divided, if the sixth restrictive article was 
changed, and a ratio of division was provided, and commissioners were apnointed on 
the part of the Northern Church to act with commissioners from the Southern 
Church to carry this division into effect. They then separated. On the separation, 
the gentlemen from the Southern conferences immediately presented the subject in 
a general address to the Southern conferences, giving them the details of what had 
happened in the General Conference, and asking the Southern conferences to take 
up the question and say whether they found it necessary to form an independent 
body or not. The fifteen or sixteen Southern conferences—sixteen, I think, there 
were—all united in voting that it was impossible to go on with the Northern gen- 
tlemen in this state of things; that the only way of retaining the existence of the 
society in the South, was by establishing a separate organization. They elected 
delegates to meet at Louisville in 1845, by whom this measure should be considered 
in general council. ‘The Convention of 1845 adopted a plan of a Southern organiza- 
tion, and appointed a General Conference of the Methodist Church, South, to be 
held in 1846. They adopted every article of religion, every article of doctrine, 


* This was afterwards shown to be a misapprehension of the counsel as to this fact. 


7 


everything of discipline, and the organization of the Church, as held by the Northern 
Church. Indeed, they took the established Book of Discipline, and printed it anew, 
with the same mode of representation, and in every respect the two were identical, 
except that the General Conference, instead of being one, was now divided into two. 
They appointed commissioners to deal with commissioners from the Church, North, 
with respect to the division of the common fund. When these commissioners 
assembled, this state of things met them: the commissioners of the Northern Church 
had been overtaken by scruples as to the constitutionality of that thing, and refused 
to treat at all. The commissioners of the Southern Church deferred until their 
Conference of 1848 met, which determined, after the Mississippi style, that the Con- 
ference of 1844 had no power to enter into this plan, and that the Northern Church 
-was the only Church; and that the plan of the Southern Church, which had really 
been formed at the invitation of the General Conference of 1844, was null and void, 
and that by that very organization they had all become seceders; that is to say, 
these fifteen or sixteen conferences had ceased to be members of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church at all. They adopted an additional rule, which, I confess, always 
seemed to be one which nothing could sanction, that the supernumerary and super- 
annuated preachers, the orphans and widows of preachers, as well as travelling 
preachers of the Southern Church, should not partake of this fund which had been 
earned by their common services, and which was provided originally as a reward to 
those who could work no longer, for their past services. I can understand, and 
have often seen in these controversies, that when the connexion is broken, it would 
be a misappropriation of a fund, devoted to the spreading of certain religious truths, 
to apply it to the propagation of different principles, carried on by a different eccle- 
siastical organization ; but I have not, to this moment, been able to understand how 
the orphans and widows of the preachers, the old men and supernumeraries of that 
Southern Church, should be excluded from participation in a fund which they, and 
their fathers, and husbands, had earned. I have not been able to see how it is pos- 
sible that they can be shut out from it by that which has taken place, even if our 
friends on the other side should be right on the subject of secession. 

We now claim in behalf of these Southern conferences, that this fund shall be di- 
vided as to the beneficiaries. 

We also suppose it must be divided as to the trustees. But that is another 
question. It may remain in the hands of the same trustees and the beneficiaries in 
the Southern country be entitled to it; but I suppose that if we are right, your 
Honours will say, that the Southern Conference, under the circumstances, has an 
equal right with the North to appoint the trustees—the persons by whom it is to be 
distributed ; that not only should they be entitled to the profits of the fund, but also 
to a division of the capital, and to appoint the trustees to manage the capital, or that 
they should be appointed by your Honors or nominated by the Southern conferences. 
This is the whole question before us. It is a grave question, undoubtedly, in its 
amount and interest, reaching not only to this fund, but, so far as I can see, to the 
stability and title of every Methodist parsonage or preaching-house in the Southern 
country, because, they all being established for the benefit of the Methodist Church, 
if this is secession, I do not see but that the Methodist Church is exterminated alto- 
gether in the Southern country. 

If your Honours please, I will now call your attention to the Bill and the Defend- 
dants’ Answer. 

The bill is filed in the name of commissioners, who have been appointed by the 
Southern Church, and who are preachers entitled to be beneficiaries of this fund. 
One of these commissioners has died since his appointment, and we propose to ren- 


sie 


> w 
th 


8 


der the proceedings perfect in respect to this demise by substituting, by assent, the 
name of another gentleman who has been duly appointed his successor. 

The parties to the bill are “ Henry B. Bascom, a citizen of Lexington, in the 
State of Kentucky ; Alexander L. P. Green, a citizen of Nashville, in the State of 
Temessee ; Charles B. Parsons, a citizen of Louisville, in the State of Kentucky ;” 
—these were travelling preachers, and they were entitled to a share of this fund ; 
then there are “ John Kelly, a citizen of Wilson County, in the State of Tennessee ; 
James W. Allen, a citizen of Limestone County, in the State of Alabama.”— 
these are supernumerary preachers—“ and John Tevis, a citizen of Shelby County, 
in the State of Kentucky,”’ who was a superannuated preacher. Your Honours will 
see, therefore, that we have all the classes of beneficiaries, except the widows and 
orphans. 

The defendants are George Lane, Levi Scott, George Peck, and Nathan Bangs, 
citizens of the city of New-York, who are the persons that have in charge this 
“‘ Book Concern,”’ and it is due both to them and to ourselves that I should say that 
they have not participated in the heat to which this case has given rise, but have 
deemed it necessary to remain inactive, until their course shall be pointed out by the 
determination of this suit. Of their proceedings we cannot complain, nor can they 
be spoken of but with respect. 


In their bill “‘the Complainants state and show to your Honourable Court, that 
before and on the 8th day of June, 1844, there existed in the United States of 
America, a voluntary Association, known as the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States of America ; not incorporated by any legal enactment, but composed 
of seven bishops, four thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight preachers belonging 
to the travelling connexion ; and in bishops, ministers, and membership, about one 
million one hundred and nine thousand nie hundred and sixty,—then being in the 
United States, and territories of the United States, united and holden together in one 
organized body, by certain doctrines of faith and morals, and by certain rules of gov- 
ernment and discipline. 

“‘ That the general government of the Methodist Episcopal Church was vested in 
one general body, called the General Conference, and in certain subordinate bodies, 
called annual conferences, and in bishops, and travelling ministers and preachers ; 
and the great object of the said Methodist Episcopal Church was the diffusion of the 
principles of the Saviour of mankind—good morals, pure religion, piety, and holy- 
ness, among the people of the world. And the complainants allege, that the con- 
stitution, organization, form of government, and rules of discipline, as well as the 
articles of religion and doctrines of faith of the Methodist Episcopal Church, were 
of general knowledge and notoriety, nevertheless, for the more particular informa- 
tion of the Court, they refer to a printed volume, which will be produced on the trial 
of the cause, entitled ‘The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church.’ And the complainants allege, that differences, and disagreements having 
sprung up in the Church, between what was called by the Church the Northern and 
Southern members, upon the administration of the Church government, with refer- 
ence to the ownership of slaves by the ministry of the Church, of such a character, 
and attended with such consequences, as threatened fearfully to impair the useful- 
ness of the Church, as well as permanently to disturb its harmony; and became and 
was with the members of the Church, a question of very grave and serious im- 
portance, whether a separation ought not to take place by some geographical bound- 
ary, with necessary and proper exceptions, so as that the Methodist Episcopal Church 
should thereafter constitute two separate and distinct Methodist Episcopal Churches. 
And thereupon the complainants allege, that at a General Conference of the Church, 
holden, according to usage and discipline, at New-York, on the 8th day of June, 1844, 
the following resolutions were duly and legally, and by a majority of over three- 
fourths of the entire body, passed; which resolutions are herewith copied, and prayed 
to be taken as part of this bill, which are in the words and figures, to wit :— 

“¢« Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences, in General Con- 
ference assembled, 1. That should the annual conferences in the slave-holding 
States find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connexion, the following 


rule shall be observed with regard to the Northern boundary of such connexion: All 
the societies, stations, and conferences adhering to the Church in the South, by a 
vote of a majority of the members of said societies, stations, and conferences, shall 
remain under the unmolested pastoral care of the Southern Church ; and the minis- 
ters of the Methodist Episcopal Church shall in no wise attempt to organize churches 
or societies within the limits of the Church, South, nor shall they attempt to exercise 
any pastorial oversight therein ; it being understood that the ministry of the South 
reciprocally observe the same rule in relation to stations, societies, and conferences, 
adhering by vote of a majority, to the Methodist Episcopal Church ; provided also, 
that this rule shall apply only to societies, stations, and conferences, bordermg on 
the line of division, and not to interior charges, which shall, in all cases, be left to 
the care of that Church within whose territory they are situated. 

««¢2. That ministers, local and travelling, of every grade and office, in the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, may, as they prefer, remain in that Church, or, without 
blame, attach themselves to the Church, South. 

«<3. Resolved, By the delegates of all the annual conferences, in General Con- 
ference assembled, That we recommend to all the annual conferences, at their first 
approaching sessions, to authorize a change of the sixth restrictive article, so that 
the first clause shall read thus, ‘They shall not appropriate the produce of the 
Book Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, to any other purpose other than for the 
benefit of the travelling, supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their 
wives, widows, and children, and to such other purposes as may be determined upon 
by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the General Conference.” 

““¢4. That whenever the annual conferences, by a vote of three-fourths of all 
their members voting on the third resolution, shall have concurred in the recommenda- 
tion to alter the sixth restrictive article, the Agents at New-York and Cincinnati 
shall, and they are hereby authorized and directed to, deliver over to any authorized 
agent or appointee of the Church, South, should one be organized, all notes and book 
accounts against the ministers, church-members, or citizens, within its boundaries, 
with authority to collect the same for the sole use of the Southern Church, and that 
said agents also convey to aforesaid agent or appointee of the South, all the real 
estate, and assign to him all the property, including presses, stock, and all right and 
interest connected with the Printing Establishments at Charleston, Richmond, and 
Nashville, which now belong to the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

«<5. That when the Annual Conferences shall have approved the aforesaid change 
in the sixth restrictive article, there shall be transferred to the above Agent for the 
Southern Church, so much of the capital and produce of the Methodist Book Con- 
cern, as will, with the notes, book accounts, presses, &c., mentioned in the last 
resolution, bear the same proportion to the whole property of said Concern, that the 
travelling preachers in the Southern Church shall bear to all the travelling ministers 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The division to be made on the basis of the 
number of travelling preachers in the forthcoming Minutes. 

«6. That the above transfer shall be in the form of annual payments of $25,000 
per annum, and specifically in stock of the Book Concern, and in Southern notes and 
accounts due the establishment, and accruing after the first transfer mentioned 
above ; and until the payments are made, the Southern Church shall share in all the 
net profits of the Book Concern, in the proportion that the amount due them, or in 
arrears, bears to all the property of the Concern. 

“<7. That Nathan Bangs, George Peck, and James B. Finley, be, and they are 
hereby appointed, commissioners, to act in concert with the same number of com- 
missioners, appointed by the Southern organization, (should one be formed,) to 
estimate the amounts which will fall due to the South by the preceding rule, and 
to have full power to carry into effect the whole arrangements proposed with regard 
to the division of property, should the separation take place. And if by any means 
a vacancy occurs in this Board of Commissioners, the Book Committee at New- 
York shall fill said vacancy. 

«8. ‘That whenever Agents of the Southern Church are clothed with legal au- 
thority or corporate power, to act in the premises, the Agents at New-York are 
hereby authorized and directed to act in concert with said Southern Agents, so as to 
give the provisions of these resolutions a legally binding force. 

“©«9, ‘That all the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in meeting-houses, 
parsonages, colleges, schools, conference funds, cemeteries, and of every kind, within 


10 


the limits of the Souther organization, shall be forever free from any claim set up 
on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as this resolution can be of 
force in the premises. 

“10. That the Church so formed in the South shall have a common right to use 
all the copy-rights in possession of the Book-Concerms at New-York and Cincinnati, 
at the time of the settlement by the commissioners. 

«11. That the Book Agents at New-York be directed to make such compensa- 
tion to the conferences South for their dividend from the Chartered Fund, as the 
commissioners above provided for shall agree upon. 

‘“«¢12. That the Bishops be respectfully requested to lay that part of this report 
requiring the action of the annual conferences, before them as soon as possible, be- 
ginning with the New-York Conference.’ 

“ And the complainants allege, that the said General Conference had full, com- 
petent, and lawful power and authority, to pass and adopt the said resolutions, and 
each and all of them, and that the same thereby became and were of binding force 
and validity. 

“« And the complainants further allege, that after the adoption of the foregoing 
resolutions, such proceedings were had in the several Annual Conferences of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in the slave-holding States; that a full convention 
thereof, by delegates, elected on the basis of the resolutions of the General Confer- 
ence of 1844, assembled at Louisville, in Kentucky, on the first day of May, 1845 ; 
and the said convention, after full and mature consideration, adopted the following 
resolutions, which they pray may be taken as part of this bill :— 

“<< Be it resolved by the delegates of the several annual conferences of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in the slave-holding States, in general convention as- 
sembled, That it 1s right, expedient, and necessary, to erect the annual conferences 
represented in this convention into a distinct ecclesiastical connexion, separate from 
the jurisdiction of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as at 
present constituted ; and accordingly we, the delegates of said annual conferences, 
acting under the provisional plan of separation adopted by the General Confer- 
ence of 1844, do solemnly declare the jurisdiction hitherto exercised over said 
annual conferences, by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
entirely dissolved ; and that said annual conferences shall be, and they hereby are 
constituted, a separate ecclesiastical connexion, under the provisional plan of sepa- 
ration aforesaid, and based upon the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
comprehending the doctrines and entire moral, ecclesiastical, and economical rules 
and regulations of said Discipline, except only in so far as verbal alterations may be 
necessary to a distinct organization, and to be known by the style and title of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

““¢ Resolved, That we cannot abandon or compromise the principles of action 
upon which we proceed to a separate organization in the South; nevertheless, 
cherishing a sincere desire to maintain Christian union and fraternal intercourse with 
the Church, North, we shall always be ready, kindly and respectfully, to entertain, 
and duly and carefully consider, any proposition or plan, having for its object the 
union of the two great bodies in the North and South, whether such proposed union 
be jurisdictional or connexional.’ 

‘«« And the complainants further allege, That afterwards, viz., on the second day 
of July, Anno Domini, 1845, a council of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church met at New-York, (which council was composed of the Northern bishops 
alone,) and then and there unanimously adopted the following resolutions, which they 
pray may be taken as part of this bill :— 

“© Resolved, That the plan reported by the select committee of nine, at the last 
General Conference, and adopted by that body, in regard to a distinct ecclesiastical 
connexion, should such a course be found necessary by the annual conferences in 
the slave-holding States, is regarded by us as of binding obligation in the premises, 
so far as our administration is concerned. 

“‘« Resolved, That, in order to ascertain fairly the desire and purpose of those 
societies bordering on the line of division in regard to their adherence to the Church 
North or South, due notice should be given of the time, place, and object of the 
meeting for the above purpose, at which a chairman and secretary should be ap- 
pointed, and the sense of all the members present be ascertained, and the same be 
forwarded to the bishop who may preside at the ensuing annual conferences ; or 


11 


forward to said presiding bishop a writen request to be recognised and have a 
preacher sent them, with the names of the majority appended thereto.’ 

“And the complainants allege, That by and in virtue of the foregoing proceed- 
ings, the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, as it had existed before 
the year 1844, became and was divided into two distinct Methodist Episcopal 
Churches, with distinct and independent powers and authority, composed of the se- 
veral annual conferences, charges, stations, and societies, lying or being situated 
North and South of the afore-described line of division. 

“« And the complainants further allege, That by force of the foregoing proceed- 
ings, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, became and was entitled to its propor- 
tion of all the property, real and personal, and all funds and effects, (said property 
and funds of the Methodist Episcopal Church, had been obtained and collected by 
voluntary contribution, in which contribution the members of the Church South con- 
tributed the largest portion of the same,) which, up to the time of the separation, 
had belonged to the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, and that the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was, and is so entitled, without any change or 
alteration of the sixth restrictive article above mentioned ; but the complainants 
allege, That, if the change in the sixth restrictive article were necessary in order 
that the Church, South, should obtain an equitable division of the Church property, a 
majority of three-fourths of all the members of the several annual conferences which 
voted directly on the question, in view of a division of the property,"has been 
obtained. 

“And the complainants further savy, That before and on the said 8th day of June, 
1844, the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States owned and possessed 
large amounts of property in various parts of the United States, in addition to the 
meeting-houses, parsonages, and other estates of that description, and that said pro- 
perty, real and personal, was in the hands of the agents and trustees, being in some 
instances corporations, but more frequently in private and unincorporated individuals : 
That among other descriptions and claims of property, there belonged to the said 
Church, what was denominated the ‘ Book Concern,’ in the city of New-York, 
consisting of houses, lots, machinery, printing-presses, book-bindery, books, paper, 
debts, cash, and other articles of property, amounting in all to about the sum of 
seven hundred thousand dollars, the whole of which lands and goods, property and 
effects, so situated, are now in the possession of the defendants, Lane and Scott, 
denominated hereinafter as Book Agents. 

“‘ And the complainants further say, That after the separation of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church into two distinct Churches, by virtue of the resolutions of the 
General Conference of 1844, and the action of the annual conferences in the South, 
as hereinbefore set forth, the Agents of the Book Concern at New-York, in pur- 
suance of the provisions and terms of said resolutions, paid to the several annual 
conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, their proportion of profits 
and income of the Book Concern, as fixed and set apart by the said agents for the 
year 1845. But the complainants further allege, ‘That since the year 1845, the 
said agents have utterly refused to pay to the said annual conferences, South, and 
to complainants, for and on behalf of them, their said just proportions of the profits 
and income of the said Book Concern, and still continue to withhold the same; to 
the manifest loss and injury of the said Church, South, and in plain violation of their 
rights. And the complainants further say, That the General Conference of the 
Church, South, holden at Petersburgh, Virginia, on the day of May, 1846, in pur- 
suance of, and in compliance with, the aforesaid resolutions of the General Confer- 
ence of 1844, proceeded to appoint the complainants, Bascom and Green, together 
with S. A. Latta, commissioners, to meet the commissioners appointed by the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church of 1844, and settle and re- 
ceive from said commissioners the just proportion of the property and effects due the 
South, according to the plan of separation, which resolutions are in the words and 
figures following, to wit, and prayed to be taken as part of this bill :-— 

“<1. Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, in General Conference assembled, That three commis- 
sioners be appointed, in accordance with the ‘* Plan of Separation,” adopted by the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1844, to act in concert 
with the commissioners appointed by the said Methodist Episcopal Church, to esti- 
mate the amount due to the South, according to the aforesaid ‘‘ Plan of Separation,” 


12 


and to adjust and settle all matters pertaining to the division of the Church property 
and funds, as provided for in the said ‘ Plan of Separation,” with full powers to carry 
into effect the whole arrangement with regard to said division. 

«2. Resolved, That the Commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
shall forthwith notify the commissioners and Book Agents of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, of their appointment as aforesaid, and of their readiness to adjust and 
settle the matters aforesaid ; and should no such settlement be effected before the 
session of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1848, said 
commissioners shall have power and authority, for and in behalf of this conference, to 
attend the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to settle and 
adjust all questions involving property or funds, which may be pending between the 
Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

“©¢3 Resolved, That should the commissioners appointed by this General Confer- 
ence, after proper effort, fail to effect a settlement, as above, then, and in that case, 
they shall be, and they are hereby authorized to take such measures as may best 
secure the just and equitable claims of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to the 
property and funds aforesaid.’ 

“« And thereupon, and under the authority of said last-recited resolutions, the said 
Bascom, Green, and Latta were duly appointed such commissioners, and their said 
appointment duly certified and made known to the commissioners appointed by the 
said resolutions of the General Conference of 1844. And the said complainants 
further say, that the said Bascom, Green, and Latta, immediately after their said 
appointments as such commissioners as aforesaid, applied to Nathan Bangs, George 
Peck, and James B. Finley, commissioners appointed by the seventh resolution of 
the said General Conference of 1844, and the said Book Agents at New-York, to act 
in concert with the commissioners appointed upon the part of the South, to settle and 
divide the property belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church, between the 
Church North and the Church South, and requested them to proceed to the duty 
assigned them, by dividing the property, as contemplated and directed by said reso- 
lution ; and that they, the complainants, Bascom and Green, together with the said 
Latta, have repeatedly called on them since for this purpose; but the defendants 
have wholly failed and refused to act in the premises, and complainants have not 
been enabled, although they have used all honourable and fair means, to get a settle- 
ment with them of this unpleasant question ; nor have they been enabled to induce 
the said Book Agents of the Methodist Episcopal Church, nor the Church itself, nor 
the commissioners to pay to the Church South its proportionate share of said property 
and funds, as provided by said plan of separation. 

“The complainants further show, that since the appointment of the said Samuel 
A. Latta, as one of the Commissioners, by the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, say on the day of February, 1849, he, the said Latta, 
hath resigned his office as such commissioner ; and that they, the said Bascom and 
Green, by virtue of and under the authority of the said General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, have appointed their co-complainant, Parsons, 
to fill the vacancy of said Latta. And the complainants allege, that they are mem- 
bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South ; that they are preachers—Kelly and 
Allen are supernumerary, and Tevis superannuated preachers, and belong to the 
travelling connexion of said Church, South, and that, as such, they have a personal 
interest in the real estate, personal property, debts, and funds, now holden by the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, through the said defendants, as agents and trustees 
appointed by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Com- 
plainants further allege, that there are about fifteen hundred preachers belonging 
to the travelling connexion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, each of whom 
has a direct and personal interest in the same right with your complainants to said 
property, as above described, situated and held as aforesaid ; that the great number 
of persons interested as aforesaid, in the recovery sought by this bill, makes it incon- 
venient, indeed, impossible, to bring them all before the court as complainants ; that 
they are citizens of other States than the State of New-York, and their interests in 
the property in question exceeds two thousand dollars. 

Pe Complainants further allege, that the defendants are members of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, are preachers belonging to the travelling connexion of that 
Church, and that each of them has a personal interest in the said property and funds, 
as above described ; in addition to which, the said defendants, Lane and Scott, have 


13 


the custody and control, by law, and by virtue of their appointment as Agents of the 
Book-Concern by the Genera! Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of all 
the said property and effects of said Book-Concern above described. That in addi- 
tion to these defendants, there are nearly thirty-eight hundred preachers belonging to 
the travelling connexion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, each of whom has an 
interest in the said property in the same right, so that it will be impossible, in view 
of attaining a just decision of this controversy, to make all those interested, parties 
to this bill. 

‘“‘ Complainants further allege, that the entire membership of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, is about four hundred and sixty thousand five hundred and 
fifty-three, and that the entire membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church is 
about six hundred and thirty-nine thousand and sixty-six; so that it will be at once 
seen by the Honourable Court, that it is utterly impracticable and impossible to 
bring all the parties in interest before the Court, in this bill, either as complainants 
or as defendants. 

“‘ And the complainants further say, that they bring this Bill by the authority and 
under the direction of the General and the annual Conferences of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, and for the benefit and in behalf of the said Church, South, 
and the said General Conference, and for the benefit and in behalf of all the annual 
conferences in the said Church, South, and of themselves, and of all the preachers 
in the travelling connexion, and all other ministers and members of said Church, and 
all others having interest in the same right in its funds and property. 

“To the end, therefore, and forasmuch as complainants, and those they represent, 
are greatly aggrieved and injured by the oppressive course pursued by the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, in their refusal to divide the said property according to equity, 
and in pursuance of the Plan of Separation, so as aforesaid set forth; and that com- 
plainants, so as aforesaid, are without relief, except in a Court of Equity, they pray 
your Honourable Court that they may be allowed to prosecute this bill in their own 
behalf, and in behalf of all those bodies and persons so interested, belonging to the 
Church, South, as above set forth; and that said defendants, by suitable process 
directed, &c., commanding, &c., be made defendants to this bill, for themselves 
and those they represent, as agents, trustees, and commissioners, and that, upon 
oath, they make full, true, and perfect answers to each allegation in this bill con- 
tained, setting forth their own rights, and the rights of those under whom they now 
act, and have heretofore acted, to the end that this Honourable Court may be 
enabled to ascertain the rights of all the parties, and decree accordingly. 

“ And the complainants particularly pray that defendants, Lane and Scott, may 
be required to produce a full, particular, and just account of all the real estate, per- 
sonal estate, goods, debts, money, and effects of every sort or kind, now held by 
them, or either of them, as agent or agents, trustees, or members of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in the United States; and that the said Bangs, Peck, and Finley, 
be required to answer upon oath, whether they were not appointed by the General 
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church of 1844, held at New-York, commis- 
sioners to act upon the part of the North, with the commissioners to be appointed 
on the part of the South, in case of a separate and distinct ecclesiastical connexion 
being formed by the South, in the division of the Church property, so called; and 
whether the complainants, Bascom, Green, and Parsons, and the said Samuel 
A. Latta, as commissioners, did not call upon them for a settlement, and to arrange 
the distribution of the Church property according to the Plan of Separation; and if 
they did not refuse so to act in the settlement and division of said Church property ; 
and that they, all the said defendants, also be made to answer, all and singular, 
the allegations and matters in this bill set forth, as fully as though the same were 
ahah to them in the form of interrogatories, and they especially interrogated 
thereto.” 


And then a decree is prayed, which I need not read. 
To the bill of the plaintiffs the defendants have put in an answer. 


Mr. Jounson, Junior, and Mr. Fancuer, read the answer, at the request of Mr, 
Lorp, as follows :— 


“These defendants now, and at all times hereafter, saving and reserving to them- 
selves all, and all manner of, advantage and benefit of exception to the manifold 


14 


errors, uncertainties, insufficiencies, and other imperfections, in the plaintiffs’ said 
Bill of Complaint contained, for answer thereunto, or unto so much and such parts 
thereof as they are advised it is material or necessary for them to make answer— 
they answering, say :— Bi" 

“That they admit, that before and on the 8th day of June, 1844, there existed, 
and, as these defendants say, there still exists, in the United States of America, a 
voluntary association, known as ‘The Methodist Episcopal Church ;’ and, although 
not incorporated in one body by any legal enactment, yet the same was, and is, a 
duly organized evangelical Church. And these defendants further say, that although 
‘The Methodist Episcopal Church’ is not a body politic and corporate at common 
law ; yet, under the law of pious and charitable uses, as protected and enforced in 
courts of equity, it has an organization, and performs functions, and exercises and 
discharges powers and duties, analagous to institutions strictly and legally mcorpo- 
rated ; and that the said Church is, in courts of equity, fully protected in the use 
and enjoyment of such functions, powers, and duties. And these defendants admit, 
that on the day above mentioned, the said Church was composed of the number of 
bishops stated by the plaintiffs; but these defendants say, that, according to their 
information and belief, the plaintiffs have not accurately stated the number of tra- 
velling preachers, ministers, or members belonging to the Church at that time: And 
the defendants further admit, that the said Church was united and holden together 
in one organized body, by certain doctrines of faith and morals, and by certain rules 
of government and discipline. ; 

‘“‘ These defendants further answering, say, that, exercised within the restrictions 
and constitutional powers contained in its Book of Discipline, the supreme govern- 
ment of the Methodist Episcopal Church, comprising the authority to make rules 
and regulations for the Church, limited by such restrictions and constitutional 
powers, was, and is, vested in a delegated body called the General Conference ; 
and that there are within the system and polity of the Church, annual conferences, 
which, in some, but not in all respects, are bodies subordinate to the General Con- 
ference ; also quarterly conferences, bishops, presiding elders, and travelling minis- 
ters, in whom, and in which conferences, respectively, are vested the powers and 
authority specified in the Book of Discipline ; and, beyond the powers of govern- 
ment thus alluded to, these defendants deny the allegation of the plaintiffs’ bill, 
that the general government of the said Church was or is vested as therein 
stated. 

“ And these defendants admit, that the plaintiffs have partially stated the grea 
object of the said Methodist Episcopal Church; nevertheless, the defendants, more 
fully to set forth the design of the said Church, say, that it comprehends the exer- 
cise of its ecclesiastical government and discipline, involving the itinerancy of its 
bishops and ministers; the promulgation of the doctrines of the Gospel among all 
men; the due administration of Scriptural ordinances and the holy sacraments; the 
promotion of works of piety and benevolence ; the revival and spread of Scriptural 
holiness, and the conversion of the world to the faith and practice of Christianity. 

«« And these defendants admit, that the constitution, organization, form of govern- 
ment, and rules of discipline, as well as the articles of religion and doctrines of 
faith, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, were, and are, of general knowledge and 
notoriety ; and are contained in a printed volume, entitled, ‘The Doctrines and Dis- 
cipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church.’ Yet these defendants say, that such 
printed volume—in this answer designated the ‘ Book of Discipline’—has been, 
according to the forms, and in the manner therein prescribed, and at various times 
since the organization of the said Church, altered, amended, and revised, in sundry 
particulars, a full and particular relation of which would be too extended to be here 
set forth; but, for an accurate account thereof, these defendants crave leave to pro- 
duce, and refer to, a printed book, entitled ‘ Emory’s History of the Discipline ;’ also 
the several editions of the said Book of Discipline, published by the agents for the 
Methodist Book Concern, in the city of New-York. 

‘And these defendants, in respect of the ‘differences and disagreements’ alleged 
by the plaintiffs to have ‘sprung up in the Church between what were called the 
Northern and Southern members, upon the administration of the Church government 
with reference to the ownership of slaves by the ministry of the Church,’—answer 
and say, that, according to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, no 
such differences or disagreements had sprung up in the Church between the Northern 


15 


and Southern members, prior to the session of the General Conference held in the 
city of New-York, in 1844, attended with or seriously threatening the consequences 
alleged by the plaintiffs. 

‘‘And these defendants, according to their best knowledge, information, and 
belief, also deny that it ever, prior to that session of the General Conference, 
became, or was, a question of grave or serious importance with the members of the 
Church, or with any, except a few of them, whether a separation ought not to take 
place by geographical boundaries, or otherwise, so as that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church should thereafter constitute two separate and distinct Methodist Episcopal 
Churches ; or, that it was ‘thereupon,’ as erroneously alleged by the plaintiffs, that 
the resolutions which they denominate the ‘Plan of Separation,’ and which are set 
forth in their bill, were passed at the General Conference of 1844, held in the city 
of New-York; and these defendants say, that then, and always hitherto, the greater 
portion of the Church have not thought there was any sufficient cause for a separa- 
tion or division of the Church. 

‘“‘ And these defendants, further answering with respect to such differences and dis- 
agreements, say, that during, and subsequent to, the session of the General Con- 
ference of 1844, those differences and disagreements principally grew out of the 
voluntary connexion of a bishop with slavery, and out of the proceedings of that 
body in reference thereto, hereafter referred to; that the rules of the Book of Disci- 
pline, and the uniform action of the General Conference, have always been adverse 
to the system of human slavery, it being regarded as a great evil; and, prior to the 
session of the General Conference in 1844, the whole Church, by common consent, 
united in proper effort for the mitigation and final removal of the evil; that the minis- 
ters have never been allowed to hold slaves, except in instances under the laws of 
the slave-holding States deemed to be cases of necessity; that the Church never 
made, nor has its Book of Discipline ever contained, any law respecting the holding 
of slaves by a bishop of the Church; that the General Conference have always re- 
fused to elect a slave-holder to that office; that, at the session of the General Con- 
ference in 1844, held in the city of New-York, it became known that the Rey. James 
O. Andrew, one of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, had, since his 
election to that office, become an owner of slaves,—of one, by bequest; of another, 
by inheritance; and of others, by his intermarriage with a lady in the State of 
Georgia who held a number of slaves in her own right, which, by the laws of the 
State, became the property of her husband; that, as will appear by its printed Jour- 
nal, (pp. 65-83,) such proceedings were had by that General Conference, upon the 
admitted facts contained in a statement in writing made by Bishop Andrew, and 
which was in due form brought before the Conference by one of its standing com- 
mittees called the ‘‘Committee on the Episcopacy,’’ whose duty it was to inquire 
into the conduct and administration of the bishops, and to make report to the Con- 
ference,—as that the following preamble and resolution were duly and legally adopt- 
ed by that Conference, to wit :— 

««« Whereas the Discipline of our Church forbids the doing anything calculated to 
destroy our itinerant general superintendency; and whereas Bishop Andrew has be- 
come connected with slavery by marriage and otherwise; and this act having drawn 
after it circumstances which, in the estimation of the General Conference, will great- 
ly embarrass the exercise of his office as an itinerant general superintendent, if not 
in some places entirely prevent it; therefore, 

“¢Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that he desist from 
the exercise of his office so long as this impediment remains.’ 

“ And these defendants, upon their information and belief, further say, that the adop- 
tion of this resolution gave offence to a minority of the members of that General 
Conference, and who were delegates from annual conferences in the slave-holding 
States; and principally, if not wholly, induced those delegates to present a formal 
Protest against such action of the General Conference, which was admitted to record 
on its Journal, and, with the report in reference thereto of the committee appointed 
by the General Conference for that purpose, is appended to such Journal, (pp. 186— 
210,) to all which these defendants desire leave to refer; and which also induced 
such delegations from the annual conferences in the slave-holding States to present 
to said General Conference the declaration already referred to, which was read, and 
referred to a committee of nine, whose report thereon is the so-called ‘ Plan of Sepa- 
ration,’ herein mentioned ; which declaration is recorded on page 109 of the printed 


16 


Journal of the General Conference, and to which also the defendants crave leave to 
refer; and which resolution, in the case of Bishop Andrew, further induced such de- 
legates, (although without the authority of the General Conference, and in no man- 
ner sanctioned by any action of that body,) immediately after the adjournment of 
such General Conference of 1844,—before the happening of the contingencies men- 
tioned in the so-called ‘Plan of Separation,’ necessary to give the same effect, and 
before such delegates had departed from the city of New-York,—to address a circu- 
lar to their constituents and the ministers and members of the Church in the slave- 
holding States, therein expressing their own opinion in favour of a separation from 
the jurisdiction of the General Conference, and advising the annual conferences with- 
in those States to elect from their own bodies, severally, delegates to a convention 
proposed by them to be held at Louisville, Kentucky, in May following, to consider 
and determine the matter; all which, finally led those annual conferences, or por- 
tions of them, at that convention,—to withdraw and separate from the Methodist 
Episcopal Church ;—to renounce and declare themselves wholly absolved from its 
jurisdiction, government, and authority, and to institute a new and distinct ecclesias- 
tical organization, separate from, and independent of, the General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, under the denomination of ‘The Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South,’—which is the same organization mentioned in said Bill of Com- 
plaint ; and the plaintiffs, and all those whom they, professedly, represent, are adhe- 
rents thereof, and are no longer attached to the Methodist Episcopal Church; and 
these defendants believe and submit, that these proceedings were, in no part, autho- 
rized by the rules of government, or the constitutional law of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, as contained in its Book of Discipline, but were in palpable hostility 
thereto. 

“These defendants, further answering, insist and submit, that the said resolution 
of the General Conference in the case of Bishop Andrew, instead of moving to a 
secession, called for due submission and respect from all the delegates to that con- 
ference, and all the ministers and members of the Church; and the defendants, upon 
their belief, say, that the same, and all the proceedings of that body leading thereto, 
were regular, constitutional and valid; that the voluntary connexion of Bishop An- 
drew with slavery was justly considered by a majority of said General Conference, 
and by most of the ministers and members of the Church, as ‘improper conduct ;’ 
and that every bishop is, by a law of the Book of Discipline, amenable to the Gene- 
ral Conference, who are thereby declared to ‘have power to expel him for improper 
conduct, if they see it necessary ;’ and that such resolution and proceedings, in the 
case of Bishop Andrew, were in due accordance with the good government of the 
Church. 

“ And these defendants, further answering, admit, that the resolutions set forth by 
the plaintiffs, commencing at folio 7 of their bill, were, at a General Conference of 
the Church, holden, according to usage and discipline, at New-York, passed on the 
8th day of June, 1844, by a majority of over three-fourths of the entire body ; 
although, as these defendants state, such resolutions were, in respect of their opera- 
tion or effect, provisional and contingent,—were occasioned by, and based upon, the 
said declaration of the Southern delegates, and were intended only to meet the 
future emergency predicted therein, should the same arise ; and that such resolu- 
tions were connected with, and preceded by, the statement and preamble embodied 
in the report of the said committee of nine, appointed by the General Conference to 
consider and report on such declaration,—which report was adopted by the confer- 
ence, as will appear by its printed journal, (pp. 130, 137,) and which statement and 
preamble are to be taken, in connexion with said resolutions, as a part of said report 
thus adopted, and to which the defendants crave leave to refer as a part of this 
answer. But these defendants are advised by counsel, that the said resolutions, 
embodied in such report of the committee of nine, called the ‘ Plan of Separation,’ 
were not duly or legally passed ; and that the General Conference of 1844 had no 
competent, nor any valid power or authority to pass or adopt the said resolutions 
called the ‘Plan of Separation,’ or any or either of them, except that portion thereof 
comprising the recommendation to the annual conferences to change the sixth 
restrictive rule: and these defendants are also advised by counsel, that the last- 
named resolutions, when adopted, were null and void, and without any binding 
force or validity, except in the matter of such recommendation merely ; and these 
defendants therefore humbly submit these questions to this Honourable Court ; and to 


17 


show the extent of the constitutional power of the said General Conference in this 
respect, these defendants state,— 

“That from the ordination and election of the first bishops of the Church, in 1784, 
to the year 1808, the General Conference was composed of all the preachers in the 
connexion who had travelled four years from the time they were received by an 
annual conference ; but in the General Conference of 1808, on the recommendation 
of a majority of the annual conferences severally acting in their primary capacities, 
it was proposed to do away with such general assembly of ministers, and to organize 
a delegated General Conference, to consist of a delegated number, to be elected by 
the several annual conferences, according to a fixed ratio of representation ; which 
proposition was agreed to in said general convention of 1808, upon the condition of 
adopting certain articles to restrict the powers of the future delegated General Con- 
ferences ; whereupon a constitution for the government of the General Conference, 
embracing six restrictive articles, was accordingly established, defining who shall 
compose the General Conference, and what are the regulations and powers belonging 
to it; and the whole body of preachers, then assembled in general convention, 
adopted, by such constitution, the present plan for a delegated General Conference ; 
transferring to them the powers of the whole body of preachers, with the express 
exceptions and limitations specified in such restrictive articles ; which constitution 
and restrictive articles the defendants pray may be taken as a part of this answer, as 
if here set forth; and for the contents of the same, and for the particulars of these 
facts and allegations, these defendants crave leave to produce and refer to the said 
constitution and restrictive articles, contained in the Book of Discipline for 1808, 
pp- 14,15; also the subsequent editions of the ‘ Discipline ;’ also ‘ Emory’s History 
of the Discipline,’ pp. 111-113; also ‘ Bangs’ History of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church,’ vol. ul, pp. 225-234 :— 

“That such constitution and restrictive rules, thus adopted,—containing a general 
grant of all powers to make rules and regulations for the government of the Church, 
under the restraints and within the limitations therein embodied,—constituted the 
paramount law of the Church; and have always been so considered, as well by the 
delegated General Conferences, whose legislative action they were intended to 
regulate, as by the annual conferences, the bishops, ministers, and members of the 
Church, whose rights and privileges were secured thereby ; nor have the delegated 
General Conference ever had, or claimed, any power to alter or amend these restric- 
tive articles except in the manner therein prescribed, in conjunction with the consti- 
tutional majority and action of the annual conferences ; nor have any alterations 
thereof ever been made, except in conformity with the provisions contained therein 
for such alterations ; and never without such constitutional majority and assent of 
the several annual conferences, voting thereon in their primary capacities :— 

“That this constitution, embodying these restrictive articles, is still—and during 
the session of the General Conference of 1844, and at the time of the passage of the 
resolutions called the ‘Plan of Separation,’ was—the fundamental law of the 
Church, as will be seen on reference to the Book of Discipline, pp. 21-23, edition of 
1844 ; that the General Conference is the representative body above mentioned with 
powers limited as aforesaid, to make rules and regulations for the government of the 
Church. And these defendants, as they are further advised by counsel, believe and 
submit, that these restrictive articles limit and restrain the exercise of the powers of 
the General Conference to the enactment of rules and regulations for the Church, to 
carry on throughout the whole work, the economy and purposes of its government, 
as already settled ; prohibiting any change or alteration in any part or rule of such 
government, so as to do away episcopacy, or destroy the plan of the itinerant 
general superintendency of the Church; that they prohibit the exercise of any 
power by the General Conference to do away the privileges of the ministers, 
preachers, or members, of trial by a committee, or before the society, and of an 
appeal ; and also prohibit the General Conference, without the consent of three- 
fourths of the whole body of ministers, to be expressed in their several annual confer- 
ences, from appropriating the produce of the Book Concern, or Chartered Fund, to any 
purpose other than for the benefit of the preachers belonging to the travelling 
connexion of the Church, their wives, widows, and children. And the defendants, 
therefore, further submit to this Honourable Court, whether the said resolutions, 
denominated the ‘Plan of Separation,’ are not, in each and every of these 
particulars, inconsistent with, and subversive of, said constitutional law of the 


2 


18 


Church, and in contravention of the limitations contained in the aforesaid restrictive 
articles. 

* And these defendants, further answering, submit, as further advised by counsel, 
that even had the so-called ‘Plan of Separation’ been constitutional, or valid, it mere- 
ly provided a prospective plan, which, without the happening of certain future con- 
ditions, or on the failure of which conditions, or either of them, could never have, 
by its express terms, and, as defendants say, was never intended to have, any forco 
or validity. And these defendants expressly aver that these conditions have not 
happened ; and they therefore further insist and submit, that the said so-called ‘ Plan 
of Separation’ has always been inoperative; has never had any force or validity; and 
is absolutely null and void. 

«And these defendants, further answering, say, that the so-called ‘ Plan of Sepa- 
ration,’ whether constitutional or not, was never ratified by the annual conferences 
therein named; and therefore gave the Southern annual conferences no authority to 
act in the premises; and hence, as the defendants submit and insist, the Southern 
annual conferences have, in all respects, as to the Church, South, acted on their own 
responsibility, without any authority from the General Conference of 1844. 

“ And these defendants, further answering, say, that they admit the resolutions 
set forth by the plaintiffs, commencing at folio 20 of their bill, were adopted at a 
convention of delegates from annual conferences in the slave-holding States, assem- 
bled at Louisville, in Kentucky, on the first day of May, 1845; but these defendants 
deny, that the delegates composing that convention were elected on the basis, or ac- 
cording to the authority, of said provisional ‘Plan of Separation,’ so called, or of 
any resolutions of the General Conference of 1844; and especially do these defend- 
ants deny, that said Louisville Convention, in adopting their said resolutions, or in 
any proceedings had therein, acted under the provisional ‘Plan of Separation,’ 
adopted by that General Conference, as is stated in one of such resolutions; but, on 
the contrary thereof, these defendants say, that said provisional plan did not confer 
any authority upon that convention to adopt their said resolutions—to organize the 
new ecclesiastical connexion therein mentioned—or to dismember the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church; and, further, that the said convention was not convened by, or in pur- 
suance of, any constitutional authority of that Church, or of its General Conference ; 
and also, that the proceedings leading to, and the transactions of, the said Louisville 
Convention, and which resulted in the organization of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, were occasioned and had, by such of the ministers and members of 
the annual conferences in the slave-holding States, as have attached themselves to 
the said Church, South, upon their own responsibility, and by their own unauthorized 
acts, whilst they repudiate the authority of the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church—they refusing, and declaring their refusal, to submit to such 
authority ; and that by revolutionary measures, tending to the dismemberment of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, and by insubordinate proceedings, unwarranted by said 
‘Plan of Separation,’ so called, or by any authority of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, they did institute the said ‘Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ as an inde- 
pendent ecclesiastical organization, separate from the jurisdiction of the General 
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church; and did solemnly declare such juris- 
diction over them entirely dissolved. And, for some of the particulars of these facts 
and allegations, these defendants ask leave to refer to the aforesaid declaration, pre- 
sented on the 5th June, 1844, to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, at its session in New-York, signed by fifty-one of the delegates in that con- 
ference from slave-holding States, and who are now attached to said Church, South; 
which Declaration is recorded in the Journal of said General Conference, page 109; 
also to the ‘ Protest in the case of Bishop Andrew,’ hereinbefore referred to, presented 
to said General Conference on the 6th day of said June, signed by such delegates 
and others, now attached to said Church, South; also to the address to their consti- 
tuents, the resolutions and proceedings of such delegates at their meeting in the city 
of New-York, on the 11th June, 1844; also to the correspondence between Bishop 
Soule and Bishop Andrew, involving the request of the former to the latter, that he 
should resume his episcopal functions, and his acceptance of that request, notwith- 
standing the aforesaid resolution of the General Conference of 1844, in his case; 
also to the proceedings of said Louisville Convention; and also to the proceedings 
of the body assuming to be a General Conference composed of delegates from annual 
conferences attached to said Church, South, held at Petersburg, Va., in May, 1846. 


O* 


at 


19 
4 


Wherefore, these defendants insist and submit, that the ‘Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South,’ exists as a separate ecclesiastical communion, solely by the result, and in 
virtue, of the acts and doings of the individual bishops, ministers, and members 
attached to such Church, South, proceeding in the premises upon their own respon- 
sibility; and that such bishops, ministers, and members, have voluntarily withdrawn 
themselves from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and have renounced all their rights 
and privileges in her communion and under her government. And these defendants 
deny that the annual conferences represented in said Louisville Convention, were, as 
is erroneously stated in the first of the resolutions of the convention set forth by the 
plaintiffs, constituted a separate ecclesiastical connexion under the provisional ‘ Plan 
of Separation,’ so called, aforesaid. 

“ And these defendants, further answering, admit, that at the time and place in that 
behalf mentioned by the plaintiffs, a council of bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, called by the plaintiffs ‘ Northern Bishops,’ met and unanimously adopted 
the resolutions commencing at folio 24 of the said bill; but these defendants say, that 
the same were, as well by the express terms thereof, as by the extent of any autho- 
rity possessed by such council, or bishops, limited in their application and effect to the 
administration of the said bishops; which administration was, at that time, inter- 
rupted, resisted and prevented, in the slave-holding States, by such portion of the 
revolutionary measures above alluded to as had then occurred, and by kindred 
measures of some of the present adherents of said Church, South. Moreover, these 
defendants further state, that said bishops were amenable to the General Conference, 
who have power to inquire into their admiistration, and expel them for ‘‘ improper 
conduct,”’ if they see it necessary ; that the said provisional Plan was an act of the 
General Conference, to whom said bishops were amenable ; and that the General 
Conference had not then declared the said provisional Plan null and void. But these 
defendants, with respect to those resolutions of the bishops, submit, that they can have 
no influence or effect whatever upon the question of the alleged division of the Church ; 
nor can any effect or virtue be attached to their acts or resolutions, tending to divide 
or dismember the Church, or to warrant, in any sense, the allegation of the plaintiffs, 
that by, or in virtue of, such resolutions,—in conjunction with such other proceedings 
as are alleged by the plaintiffs, or otherwise,—the Methodist Episcopal Church ever 
became divided into two distinct Methodist Episcopal Churches. 

And these defendants, further answering, deny, that, by or in virtue of the proceed- 
ings alleged in the said Bill of Complaint, or of any part thereof, or otherwise how- 
soever, ‘the Methodist Episcopal Church’ in the United States, as it had existed 
before the year 1844, or as it at any time existed, was lawfully divided into two 
distinct Methodist Episcopal Churches, in the manner alleged in said bill, or in any 
other manner whatever. And these defendants submit, that the separation and 
voluntary withdrawal from the Church of a portion of her bishops, ministers, and 
members, as herein mentioned, was an unauthorized separation from the Church. 

“‘ And these defendants, further answering, say, that the so-called ‘ Plan of Separation’ 
was wholly prospective and contingent in its provisions ; and that the General Con- 
ference of 1844 adopted the said provisional Plan in view of, and based the same 
entirely upon, the declaration of the delegates from the annual conferences in the 
slave-holding States hereinbefore mentioned, which alleged that certain acts of the 
General Conference therein referred to, especially the act in the case of Bishop 
Andrew, must produce a state of things in the South which would render a con- 
tinuance of the jurisdiction of that General Conference over those conferences, incon- 
sistent with the success of the ministry im the slave-holding States ; and, therefore, 
the General Conference, by the said Plan, made provision for the adjustment of 
relations between the Methodist Episcopal Church and her separating ministers and 
members, to meet the emergency which might arise in the event of the contingency 
thus predicted in such declaration, when a separation should occur by the act and 
deed of the annual conferences in the slave-holding States, from the necessity of the 
case. And these defendants are informed and believe, and therefore state, that, 
independent of the aforesaid proceedings of the Southern delegates, which contri- 
buted to such separation, the acts of the General Conference alone, and which are 
thus complained of, did not produce a state of things in the South which rendered a 
continuance of the jurisdiction aforesaid ‘inconsistent with the success of the 
ministry in the slave-holding States ;’ nor was the separation of the ministers and 
members now composing the Southern Church, occasioned solely because the annual 


20 


conferences in the slave-holding States found it necessary to unite in a distinet eccle- 
siastical connexion ; but the way for such separation was prepared, and the same 
was superinduced and consummated, by the revolutionary measures hereinbefore 
referred to, and which were begun at the seat, and nearly at the time, of the session 
of the said General Conference, before the predicted state of things in the South was, 
or possibly could be, produced by any acts of the General Conference. 

“ Also, that the General Conference, by said provisional Plan, proposed, in the event 
of the happening of the contingencies therein mentioned, regulations to be mutually 
observed by the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the one part, and the prospective 
new Church and the ministers and members thereof, on the other part, with respect 
to the ‘ Northern boundary’ of such new Church, which required that such Northern 
boundary should be fixed at the Northern extremities of those ‘ societies, stations, and 
conferences,’ a majority of whose members should, of their own free will and accord, 
vote to adhere to the said Southern Church ; the due observance of which regula- 
tions was, as these defendants insist and submit, a fundamental condition of said 
provisional plan. And these defendants, as they are informed and believe, state, that 
in this respect the said provisional Plan has been violated by the said Church, South, 
and by the said separating bishops, ministers, and members now attached thereto, more 
particularly in the instances following :—The said bishops, Andrew and Soule, since 
said Southern organization, stationed preachers in Cincinnati, within the territory of the 
Ohio Annual Conference ; and in Northampton county, Virginia, within the district of 
the Philadelphia Annual Conference ; both which annual conferences have always 
remained attached to the Methodist Episcopal Church; and the aforesaid body, 
acting as the General Conference of the Church, South, sanctioned these doings of 
said bishops, and also authorized the Virginia Annual Conference, which is claimed 
as a member of the Church, South, to send ministers into the territory of the Balti- 
more Annual Conference, which is still attached to the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
And the said Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and the bishops, ministers, and 
members attached thereto, as thus stated, have violated and disregarded said 
so-called Plan. 

“ Also, that the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at its 
session held at Pittsburgh, Pa., in May, 1848,—having, as these defendants submit, 
and as they, according to their judgment and belief, state, full power and rightful 
authority so to do,—did find and declare, that the fundamental conditions of said 
proposed Plan, so-called, had severally failed; that the failure of either of them, 
separately, was sufficient to render said so-called Plan null and void; and that the 
practical workings of said so-called Plan were incompatible with the great constitu- 
tional provisions contained in said Book of Discipline ; and they, the said General 
Conference, did also find and declare, the whole and every part of said provisional 
Plan, so-called, to be null and void. And for the particulars hereof, these defend- 
ants desire leave to refer to the proceedings of, and reports adopted by, said General 
Conference of 1848; especially to its printed journal, pp. 73-85, 129, 130, and the 
Final Report of the Committee on the State of the Church, adopted by said Con- 
ference, and appended to its journal, pp. 154-164. 

“ Also, that the so-called ‘Plan of Separation,’ in no event authorized a division, 
or reorganization of the Methodist Episcopal Church into two separate Churches ; 
but provided regulations to be observed, on the happening of the contingencies 
named in the so-called Plan, should the Southern annual conferences, on their own 
responsibility, withdraw from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and unite in a dis- 
tinct confederation. 

“Wherefore, these defendants further insist and submit, that—instead of the 
division of the Methodist Episcopal Church into two distinct Churches, under and in 
pursuance of said so-called Plan of Separation, as is alleged by the plaintiffs—all 
those bishops, ministers, and members, who have attached themselves, by their own 
act and deed, to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, including the plaintiffs, 
and all those represented in or by them in said Bill of Complaint, have voluntarily 
withdrawn from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and separated themselves from its 
privileges and government ; and have thereby renounced and forfeited all right and 
claim, at law or in equity, to any portion of the funds and property in question in 
this cause. 

“And these defendants, further answering, deny that, by force of the proceedings 
alleged by the plaintiffs, or otherwise, the Methodist Episcopal Church, Baie 


21 


became, was, or is entitled, at law or in equity, to any proportion of all, or any of, 
the property, real or personal, or of all or any of the funds or effects, which, up to 
the time of the separation, or any other time, belonged to the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, in the United States, or elsewhere ; and especially do these defendants deny, 
that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was, or is so entitled to any produce 
of the Book Concern or Chartered Fund, or any property or funds pertaining thereto, 
without any change or alteration of the sixth restrictive article above mentioned ; or 
that, as erroneously alleged by the plaintiffs, a majority of three-fourths of all the mem- 
bers of the several annual conferences which voted directly on the question in view of 
a division of the property, has been obtained, infavour of any alteration of that article. . 

** And these defendants, with respect to the allegation of the plaintiffs, that ‘ said 
property and funds of the Methodist Episcopal Church had been obtained and col- 
lected by voluntary contribution, in which contribution the members of the Church, 
South, contributed the largest portion of the same,’ deny, that, so far as the allega- 
tion has reference to the property and funds of the Book Concern, in the city of 
New-York, and its appendages, the same, or the greater portion thereof, have been 
obtained by voluntary contribution; and the defendants say, that the same were 
originally obtained as is hereinafter stated ; but, in so far as the same were obtained 
by voluntary contributions, on the rebuilding of the Book Concern when damaged 
by fire, and in respect of any portion thereof contributed from the South, these 
defendants state, that all such contributions were made, intended, and given for the 
very object for which said Book Concern was then, and always had been, designed ; 
that, on occasion of the contributions referred to, many others largely contributed, 
who have since left the Church; yet that any such separatists have never had, nor 
presumed to make, a claim for their quota of such contributions; nor, on that 
account, as these defendants submit, can they, or the plaintiffs, or those whom the 
plaintiffs represent, have or make any claim to recall the portion of donations they 
have severally made by such voluntary gifts and contributions. 

“ And these defendants, further answering, admit, that before and on the 8th day 
of June, 1844, with the qualification and exception hereinafter stated, relative to the 
Chartered Fund and the Book Concern in the city of New-York, the Methodist 
Episcopal Church owned and possessed large amounts of property in various parts 
of the United States ; not, however, as the plaintiffs say, in addition to, but prin- 
cipally consisting of, meeting-houses, parsonages, and other estates of that descrip- 
tion. But these defendants deny, that, among other or any descriptions or claims 
of property, there ever belonged to said Church, in the aggregate, or to its lay mem- 
bership, what was and still is, denominated ‘ the Book Concern,’ in the city of New- 
York ; and these defendants say, that said Book Concern, with all houses, lots, 
machinery, printing-presses, book-bindery, books, paper, debts, cash, and other 
articles of property pertaining thereto, is now, and always has been, the property of 
the preachers belonging to the travelling connexion of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and their families; but if any of such preachers do not, during life, continue 
in such travelling connexion and in the communion, and subject to the government, 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, they forfeit, for themselves and their families, 
all their ownership in, and all claim upon, said Book Concern, and the produce 
thereof. And further, that the property of the said Book Concem, consisting as afore- 
said, amounts, in value, at the present time, to about the sum stated in the schedule 
hereto annexed, marked A, which schedule contains a general statement of all the 
assets and property pertaining to said Book Concern, and of the value thereof, on the 
first day of January, 1849, as accurately as the same could then, or can now be 
conveniently ascertained; and which schedule is hereby referred to, and made a part 
of this answer. And the defendants admit, that all said lands, property, and effects 
pertaining to said Book Concern, and enumerated in said schedule, are in the pos- 
session of the defendants, Lane and Scott, as agents for said Book Concern, who 
have been duly appointed as such agents by the General Conference of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church ; and the defendants state, that such agents are enabled to 
hold said Jands, and the buildings thereon and appurtenances, for the objects of said 
Book Concern and the purposes of such agency, by virtue of an act of the Legisla- 
ture of the State of New-York, entitled, ‘An Act relative to the Methodist Book 
Concern in the city of New York,’ passed April 21, 1837, which has ever since 
been, and still is, a valid law of the State of New-York, and of which the following 
is a copy, to wit :— 


22 


«¢An Act relative to the Methodist Book Concern, in the city of New-York, 
passed April 21, 1837. 

“¢§1. It shall be lawful for Thomas Mason and George Lane, Agents for the 
Methodist Book Concern, appointed by the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, and their successors, as such agents, to take and hold real estate, 
in trust for the purposes of such agency, and to demise and convey the same ; but 
the value of such real estate so taken and held by them shall not exceed two hun- 
dred thousand dollars. 

««¢§ 2. The real estate heretofore conveyed to Thomas Mason and George Lane, 
as agents as aforesaid, shall be considered as part of the real estate to be held by 
them, and their successors, as such agents, in trust as aforesaid.’—Session Laws 
of New-York, of 1837; ch. 232, p. 220. 

“And these defendants, further answering, state, that the said Book Concern 
was originally commenced and instituted by travelling ministers of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, on their own capital, with the great design, in the first place, of 
circulating religious knowledge ; by whom it was surrendered to the ownership of all 
the travelling preachers in full connexion, and made subject to the control of all the 
travelling preachers in their general convention, then called the General Conference ; 
and it was agreed, from time to time, that the profits arising from the sale of the 
books should be applied to pious and charitable objects, but principally to the sup- 
port of travelling ministers and their families, until, in the General Conference of 
1796, it was determined that the said moneys should, in future, be applied wholly 
to the relief of travelling preachers, including such of them as were superannuated, 
and the widows and orphans of such as were deceased ; one of the decisions of which 
General Conference in that year was, ‘the produce of the sale of our books, after 
the book debts are paid, and a sufficient capital is provided for carrying on the busi- 
ness, shall be regularly paid into the Chartered Fund ;’ and the object of said fund 
was for ‘ the relief of distressed travelling preachers, for the families of travelling 
preachers, and for the superannuated and worn-out preachers, and the widows and 
orphans of preachers.’ ‘That, from that time to the General Conference of 1808, no 
other appropriation whatever was made of the proceeds of said Book Concern, but for 
the benefit of travellmg preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and their fami- 
lies ; and that until, and in, the General Conference of that year, as is hereinbefore 
stated, all the travelling preachers m full connexion, who had travelled four years, be- 
longing to the Church, had a seat in, and were members of, the General Conference ; 
at which time, on the occasion of adopting the plan for a delegated General Confer- 
ence, with constitutional powers limited by certain restrictions, as above detailed, 
the said General Conference of travelling preachers established a Constitution, as 
already stated, specifymg who should compose, and defining the regulations and 
powers belonging to, such delegated General Conference, and therein and thereby 
providing that the General Conference should have full powers to make rules and 
regulations for the Church, under six specified limitations and restrictions, com- 
monly called the Restrictive Articles, which are fully set out in the Book of Discip- 
line—by means whereof, the said general convention of travelling preachers, as 
defendants submit they lawfully might do, committed the management of the said 
Book Concern to such delegated General Conference, as to agents, or trustees, 
under and subject to the limitation and restriction contained in the sixth of said 
restrictive articles, which the defendants crave leave to read and refer to as a part 
of this answer. 

“ And the defendants pray that said constitution and restrictive articles, es- 
pecially the .above-recited sixth restrictive article, may be taken as a part of this 
answer ; and that they may have leave to read and refer to said constitution and 
restrictive articles, and to the proceedings of said general convention of travelling 
preachers, as a part also of this answer. 

‘«« And these defendants, further answering, say, that the recommendation of the 
General Conference of 1844, contained in the aforesaid resolution embodied in the 
so-called ‘ Plan of Separation,’ to all the annual conferences, to authorize a change of 
the sixth restrictive article, so that the first clause should read as in said resolution 
specified, has not been concurred in by the constitutional majority of the members 
of such annual conferences; and that such recommendation has entirely failed : 
that such recommendation was duly laid before all the annual conferences ; and that 
they all voted thereon; but, on canvassing the votes at the General Conference in 


23 


1848,—which body had full power to determine the number of votes by the annual 
conferences for altering such restrictive rule,—it was ascertained and declared, that 
the number of votes necessary to authorize such alteration had not been obtained ; 
nor have the annual conferences at any time since authorized such change of said 
article. 

“ And these defendants, for the proceedings of said General Conference, and the 
particulars, in respect of such votes, crave leave to refer to the journal of that con- 
ference, page 56, and to the Report of the Committee on the State of the Church, 
being document L, recorded in the Journal of Reports of said General Conference. 

“‘ Wherefore, these defendants, as touching the allegations and claims in the plain- 
tiffs’ bill, with regard to the property denominated the ‘ Book-Concern,’ and ‘ Char- 
tered Fund,’ and the moneys, elfects, and credits pertaining thereto, insist and sub- 
mit, that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, is not entitled, at law or in equity, 
to have a division of such property made, as claimed by said bill; nor is such Church, 
South, thus entitled to any share or portion thereof; nor are any of the ministers, 
preachers, or members, attached to such Church, South, thus entitled to any portion 
of the same; and that they—being no longer travelling preachers belonging to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church—could not be so entitled, without a constitutional 
change in the said sixth restrictive article, which would authorize such division. 

“ And these defendants, further answering, deny, that at the time alleged by the 
plaintiffs, or at any other time, the agents of the Book Concern at New-York, in 
pursuance of the provisions or terms of said resolutions, called by the plaintiffs the 
‘Plan of Separation,’ paid to the several annual conferences of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, South, their proportion of the profits and income of the Book Concern, 
as fixed and set apart by the said agents for the year 1845; and, in respect of such 
allegation, these defendants say, that the portion of profits and income, alluded to by 
the plaintiffs, which said book-agents paid to such annual conferences, had accrued 
and been apportioned to such Southern conferences previous to ‘the organization of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, whilst such conferences were connected 
with the Methodist Episcopal Church; and that such payment was made without 
any reference whatever to the said so-called ‘ Plan of Separation.’ And the defend- 
ants admit, that, since the year 1845, the said agents have refused to pay to the 
annual conferences, South, who have separated from the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
as aforesaid, anything further from the profits or income of said Book Concern—as, 
these defendants submit, in Justice and right, and according to their duty, said agents 
ought to have done. And these defendants deny, that such annual conferences, 
South, are legally entitled to any portion or share of such profits or income; or that 
the withholding thereof from them, by said agents, is in violation of their rights. 

“ And these defendants, further answering, admit, that the body assuming to act 
as the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, holden at 
Petersburg, Va., in May, 1846, proceeded to appoint the commissioners as stated in 
said bill, and for the purposes therein stated; and the defendants also admit, that 
the body aforesaid adopted the resolutions commencing at folio 34 of the plaintiffs’ 
bill; but these defendants submit and insist, that such resolutious are entirely nuga- 
tory in their effect upon the property and funds therein referred to, and the matters 
pertaining to the same. 

« And the defendants admit that said commissioners have made the applications 
to these defendants and James B. Finley, and the requests of them, in the said bill 
stated; and that these defendants have refused to act inthe premises; and they say, 
they have thus refused for the reasons and on the grounds herein set forth. 

“The defendants also admit, that the plaintiffs have not been enabled to induce 
the said book-agents—nor the Methodist Episcopal Church—nor the commissioners 
named by the plaintiffs—to pay to the Church, South, any portion or share of said 
property and funds, except as aforesaid ; but the defendants deny, that said Church, 
South, is lawfully entitled to any proportionate or other share of said property or 
funds, as provided by said ‘ Plan of Separation,’ so-called, or otherwise. r 

“And the defendants admit, that the plaintiffs are members of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, and that they are preachers belonging to the travelling con- 
nexion of said Church, South; but these defendants deny, that, as such, they, or 
any or either of them, have any personal interest in the real estate, personal pro- 
perty, debts or funds above-mentioned ; or in any property, debts or funds, if any, 
now holden by the Methodist Episcopal Church, through these defendants, or any 





24 


of them, as agents or trustees, appointed by the General Conference of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, or otherwise. 

“And these defendants, further answering, say, that they have not sufficient 
knowledge or information, either to admit or deny, whether the allegations in the 
plaintiffs’ bill respecting the number of preachers belonging to the travelling con- 
nexion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and the number in the member- 
ship of that Church,—are true or not; and the plaintiffs are, therefore, left to make 
such proof thereof as they may be able and advised to do; these defendants, how- 
ever, according to their belief, say, that such numbers have been over-stated by the 
plaintiffs. 

« And these defendants, further answering, deny, that the preachers belonging to 
the travelling connexion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, or any or either 
of them, have a direct and personal, or other legal or equitable interest, in the same 
right with the plaintiffs, or otherwise, in said property, situated and held as herein- 
before stated, or in any part or portion thereof, to any amount whatever. And the 
defendants utterly deny that the lay membership of the Church, South, whether in 
number as stated by the plaintiffs, or otherwise, are parties in interest in the subject- 
matter of the plaintiffs’ bill, or have, or ever had, any pecuniary interest in the said 
funds or property. 

“‘ And these defendants, further answering, admit, that these defendants are mem- 
bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and are preachers belonging to the travel- 
ling connexion of that Church, and that each of them has a personal interest in the 
said property and funds; but these defendants state, that such interest is the same 
only as is held in common by all the preachers in the travelling connexion of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, and depends upon the contingency of their remaining 
in that connexion. And these defendants admit that the defendants, Lane and Scott, 
have the custody and control by law, and by virtue of their appointment as agents 
of the Book Concer by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
of all the said property and effects of the said Book Concern. 

‘“* And these defendants, further answering, say, that they have no certain know- 
ledge thereof, but, according to their information and belief, they deny, that the 
plaintiffs have brought their said bill by the authority, and under the direction, of all 
the annual conferences and travelling preachers, or members, in said Church, South. 
And these defendants claim and insist upon the same benefit and advantage of this 
objection to the right of said plaintiffs to bring said bill, as if the same were inter- 
posed by plea, or demurrer, or m other proper manner. 

‘“* And these defendants, George Lane and Levi Scott, further answering, say, that 
the schedule hereto annexed, marked A, contains a full, particular and just account 
of all the real estate, personal estate, goods, debts, money and effects of every sort 
or kind, held by them, or either of them, as agent or agents, trustees, or members, 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as such account can, at the present time, 
be conveniently made up; and the same comprises all the assets and property per- 
taining to said Book Concern. 

‘“‘ And these defendants, Nathan Bangs and George Peck, admit, that, by the 
terms of the resolutions already referred to, they, together with James B. Finley, 
were appointed by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of 
1844, held at New-York, commissioners, for the purposes stated in such resolutions, 
in the event aforesaid of their becoming operative ; but say, that they have not re- 
ceived any other appointment or authority as commissioners, or otherwise, to act 
upon the part of said General Conference, or said Church, with any commissioners 
on the part of the South, in relation to any division, distribution, or settlement of the 
property herein referred to, or of any so-called ‘ Church property.’ And these 
defendants, Bangs and Peck, further say, that inasmuch as the said resolutions, de- 
nominated the ‘Plan of Separation,’ have never had any validity, and have been 
declared null and void, in the manner hereinbefore stated—they admit they have re- 
fused to act, as such commissioners under those resolutions, in any settlement or 
division of any property. 

“ And the defendants submit that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief or de- 
cree prayed for in said Bill of Complaint, or to any other relief or decree against 
these defendants, touching the matters in said bill set forth. 

“And these defendants, in answering, further say, that as they are advised by 
counsel and believe, and therefore submit, the claim of the Methodist Episcopal 


25 


Church, South, to a pro rata portion of the funds and property in question in this 
suit, is not clear, but on the contrary must be conceeded to be at least doubtful in 
law, and that these defendants cannot safely pay or deliver over the same to them, 
or their agents lawfully constituted, without their first having their rights therein and 
thereto established, and without the sanction and authority of a court of law; and 
they therefore pray, that, in any event, they may be protected from all injury in the 
premises ; that their rights and duties therein may be established, and all proper 
costs, counsel fees, commissions, and expenses of every kind, may be allowed to 
them under the decree of this Honourable Court. 


Mr. Lorp,—A replication has been filed to this answer which it is not necessary 
to read. 

Since these proceedings began, we have had to lament the death of Dr. Bascom, 
one of the parties to this suit. Dr. William A. Smith has been substituted in the 
place of Bishop Bascom. I have the consent of my friends on the other side, dated 
the 14th of May, and if your Honours please I move that an order be made, making 
this substitution as of to-day. 


Tue Court,—Take your order. 


Mr. Lorp,—If your Honours please, in introducing these proofs I may say that 
they are mostly, if not altogether, documents to be introduced by consent. We 
have on each side consented that the Book of Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, printed in 1840, which was the book in force at the time of the Conference 
of 1844, shall be considered in evidence. And we have printed those extracts which, 
on reading the book, we considered to bear upon the case, and which your Honours 
will find in the Book of Proofs, No.1. If the gentlemen on the other side think 
there is any other part that is material to the case, they can read it to the Court. We 
also, in regard to such historical facts as may bear on this controversy, have on each 
side agreed to refer to Emory’s History of the Discipline of the Church ; and further, 
we have marked our extracts and printed them. 


Mr. Cuoate,—With the right reserved to both parties of looking beyond them, I 
suppose ? 


Mr. Lorp,—Yes, sir, with the same right reserved to both parties of looking 
beyond them. We also refer to the printed journals of the several General Confer- 
ences of the Church, for the years 1840 and 1844, which were Conferences common 
to the two Churches, and to the journals of the Conference of 1848; all of which we 
have agreed to admit in evidence. The Conference of 1848 of course bore a differ- 
ent relation, a very different relation, to the subject, we suppose, than those of 1840 
and 1844, We also refer to the manuscript journals of the several General Confer- 
ences of the same Church, prior to 1840, which are accessible to both solicitors at the 
Methodist Book Concern, in the city of New-York, which shall be held and consi- 
dered to be duly authenticated and verified by proof; and extracts from any part of 
them shall be admitted as evidence, and either party shall be at liberty to refer to 
and read them with the same effect as if the original had actually been produced in 
proof. In introducing this evidence to the Court, I shall not take the course of read- 
ing the book through, but I shall introduce each distinct portion as it bears upon the 
points of the case, as they are presented in our brief of the points of the argument. 
The first to which I shall refer are those in relation to the Book Concern. I shall 
refer your Honours to the pages, so that they may be marked as I proceed. I refer 
to page 30 of the Book of Proofs, No. 1, which are proofs common to both parties. 


26 


The Book of Proofs, No. 2, contains proceedings which we introduce in evidence to 
show the acts of the portion of the Church with which we are more especially 
connected. The stipulation in regard to the admission of that is in the preface to 
the book in these words :— 


‘“« The plaintiffs in this cause, by their solicitor, propose and consent to the follow- 
ing documents and papers, and the matters therein stated, as further evidence in this 
action. 

“And the defendants, by their solicitor, consent that said documents and papers 
be read in evidence, to show the proceedings therein detailed of the various bodies 
and members thereof, and persons, as such proceedings are by those bodies, members, 
and persons, respectively for themselves reported. 

“ But the defendants, except as above, do not admit any statements of alleged 
matters of fact or of opinion, or any of the arguments in said documents or papers 
contained. 

“The Discipline of the ‘Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ may be referred to 
as containing the doctrines, and rules of government and discipline of said organiza- 
tion.” 


Turning to page 30 of Book of Proofs, No. 1, I read as follows. It is an extract 
from the Book of Discipline of 1840 :-— 


._“ Of the Printing and Circulating of Books, and of the profits arising therefrom. 


“1. The principal establishment of the Book Concern shall be in the city of New- 
York ; and there shall be such other establishments as the General Conference may 
deem expedient.”’—P. 198. 


“28. The profits arising from the Book-Concern, after a sufficient capital to 
carry on the business is retained, shall be regularly applied to the support of the de- 
ficient travelling preachers and their families, the widows and orphans of preachers, 
&c. The general book-steward shall every year send forward to each annual con- 
ference an account of the dividend which the several annual conferences may draw 
that year; and each conference may draw for its proportionate part on any person 
who has book-money in hands, and the drafts, with the receipt of the conference 
thereon, shall be sent to the general book-steward, and be placed to the credit of the 
person who paid the same.” Pp. 207, 208. 


Now, if your Honours please, I turn to the history and origin of this Book Con- 
cern, as given in Dr. Emory’s History of the Discipline. His History I would ex- 
plain is in the form of annals. He gives the history of the alterations in the Disci- 
pline at each successive General Conference, or other authorized act of the Church. 
I quote from page 17 of the Book of Proofs, No. 1. 


‘“* Of the printing and circulating of Books, and of the Profits arising therefrom. 


“1800. The form of questions and answers laid aside, and the whole section 
remodelled as follows :— 

“‘]. Ezekiel Cooper is appointed the superintendent of the Book Concer, who 
shall have authority to regulate the publications, and all other parts of the business, 
according to the state of the finances from time to time. It shall be his duty to 
inform the annual conferences if any of the preachers or private members of the so- 
ciety neglect to make due payment. He may publish any books or tracts which, at 
any time, may be approved of or recommended by the majority of an annual con- 
ference, provided such books or tracts be also approved of by the book committee, 
which shall be appointed by the Philadelphia Annual Conference. He may reprint 
any book or tract which has once been approved and published by us, when, in his 
judgment, the same ought to be reprinted. Let his accounts and books be examined 
by the Philadelphia Conference at the time of the sitting of the said conference. 

“2. It shall be the duty of every presiding elder, where no book-steward is ap- 


27 


pointed, to see that his district be fully supplied with books. He is to order such 
books as are wanted, and to give direction to whose care the same are to be sent; 
and he is to take the oversight of all our books sent into his district, and to account 
with the superintendent for the same. He is to have the books distributed among 
the several circuits in his district, and is to keep an account with each preacher who 
receives or sells the books; and is to receive the money, and to forward it to the 
superintendent. When a presiding elder is removed, he is to make a full settlement 
for all the books sold or remaining in his district; and is also to make a transfer to 
his successor of all the books and accounts left with the preachers in the district, the 
amount of which shall go to his credit, and pass to the debit of his successor. 

“3. It shall be the duty of every preacher, who has the charge of a circuit, to see 
that his circuit be duly supplied with books, and to take charge of all the books which 
are sent to him, from time to time, or which may be in his circuit; and he is to ac- 
count with the presiding elder for the same. When a preacher leaves his circuit, he 
must settle with the presiding elder for all the books he has disposed of; he is also 
to make out an inventory of all that are remaining unsold, which shall be collected 
at one place; the amount of which shall go to his credit, and be transferred to his 
successor, who is to take charge of the same. If the preacher who has the charge 
of the circuit be negligent in dispersing the books, the presiding elder shall commit 
the charge of the books to another. 

“4, The superintendent of the book business may, from time to time, supply the 
preachers with books in those circuits which are adjacent or convenient to Philadel- 
phia, and settle with them for the same: in such cases the regulations respecting the 
presiding elders are not to apply. 

“5. In all cases where books are sent to distant places, the presiding elders or 
preachers shall be allowed to put a small additional price on such books as will best 
bear it, in order to pay the expense of freight or carriage; but the addition must not 
be more than what is necessary to defray such expenses. 

‘“«§. Every annual conference shall appoint a committee or committees to examine 
the accounts of the presiding elders, preachers, and book-stewards, in their respec- 
tive districts or circuits. Every presiding elder, minister, and preacher, shall do 
everything in their power to recover all debts due to the Coneern, and also all the 
books belonging to the Concern, which may remain in the hands of any person with- 
in their districts or circuits. If any preacher or member be indebted to the Book 
Concern, and refuse to make payment, or to come to a just settlement, let him be 
dealt with for a breach of trust, and such effectual measures be adopted for the 
recovery of such debts as shall be agreeable to the direction of the annual confer- 
ences respectively. 

“7. There shall be no drafts made upon the Book Concern till its debts are dis- 
charged, and a sufficient capital provided for earrying on the business; after which, 
the profits arising from the books shall be regularly paid to the chartered fund, and 
be applied, with the annual income of the funded stock, to the support of the dis- 
tressed travelling preachers and their families, the widows and orphans of preach- 
ers, &c. 

‘“«8. It shall be the duty of the preacher or preachers who travel with any of the 
bishops, if he or they be authorized by the superintendent of the. Book Concern, to 
act as an agent in the settlement of accounts, collecting money, or in transacting any 
business belonging to the Book Concern.’’—Pp. 258-260. 


In 1804, while the conference consisted of all the preachers, it was altered to 
read in this way, —pp. 19, 20, Book of proofs, No. 1. 


“«1804,—7. The profits arising from the Book Concem, after a sufficient capital to 
carry on the business is retained, shall be regularly applied to the support of the 
distressed travelling preachers and their families, the widows and orphans of preach- 
ers, &c. The general book-steward, shall every year send forward to each annual 
conference an account of the dividend which the several annual conferences may 
draw that year; and each conference may draw for their proportionate part, on any 
person who has book money in hand, and the drafts, with the receipt of the eonfer- 
ence thereon, shall be sent to the general book-steward, and be placed to the credit 
of the person who paid the same. But each annual conference is authorized, 
at all events, to draw on the general book-steward for one hundred dollars.”—Pp. 
261, 262. 


28 


Your Honours will observe the change to be, that the profits were not to be paid 
into the Chartered Fund, but to be distributed by the agencies of the annual confer- 
ences; and it thus remained, in substance, until the rule was adopted as it now stands 
in the Discipline of 1840. 

The next subject, extracts in relation to which I will read, is the Conferences, An- 
nual and General; but in that connexion I will read extracts from the Book of 
Discipline of 1840, beginning on page 25 of the first of the proofs, on the subject 
of the Holy Scriptures, the Church, and its rites and ceremonies ; for they bear upon 
this part of the case. The articles of religion are printed at large, and what I shall 
read are but extracts. 


“ ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 


“WV. The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. 


“The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation: so that whatso- 
ever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any 
man, that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or ne- 
cessary to salvation.””—P. 10. 


“XII. Of the Church. 


“The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure 
word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered according to Christ’s 
ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.”—P. 14, 


“XXII. Of the Rites and Ceremonies of Churches. 


“Tt is not necessary that rites and ceremonies should in all places be the same, or 
exactly alike : for they have been always different, and may be changed according 
to the diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained 
against God’s word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and pur- 
posely doth openly break the rites and ceremonies of the Church to which he belongs, 
which are not repugnant to the word of God, and are ordained and approved by com- 
mon authority, ought to be rebuked openly, that others may fear to do the like, as 
one that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and woundeth the con- 
sciences of weak brethren. 

‘«‘ Every particular Church may ordain, change, or abolish rites and ceremonies, so 
that all things may be done to edification.’””-—Pp. 18, 19. 


‘XXIII. Of the Rulers of the United States of America. 


*« The president, the congress, the general assemblies, the governors, and the 
councils of state, as the delegates of the people, are the rulers of the United States 
of America, according to the division of power made to them by the Constitution of 
the United States, and by the Constitutions of their respective States. And the said 
States are a sovereign and independent nation, and ought not to be subject to any 
foreign jurisdiction.’’* 


‘* Of the General Conference. 


“‘ Quest. 2. Who shall compose the General Conference, and what are the regu- 
lations and powers belonging to it * 

“« Ans. 1. The General Conference shall be composed of one member for every 
twenty-one members of each annual conference, to be appointed either by seniority 
or choice, at the discretion of such annual conference: yet so that such representa- 
tives shall have travelled at least four full calendar years from the time that they 
were received on trial by an annual conference, and are in full connexion at the 
time of holding the conference. 

“©2. The General Conference shall meet on the first day of May, in the year of 
our Lord 1812, in the city of New-York, and thenceforward on the first day of May 


““* As far as it respects civil affairs, we believe it the duty of Christians, and especially all 
Christian ministers, to be subject to the supreme authority of the country where they may re- 
side, and to use all laudable means to enjoin obedience to the powers that be ; and therefore it 
is expected that all our preachers and people, who may be under the British, or any other 
government, will behave themselves as peaceable and orderly subjects.”—P. 19. 


29 


once in four years perpetually, in such place or places as shall be fixed on by the 
General Conference from time to time: but the general superintendents, with or by 
the advice of all the annual conferences, or if there be no general superintendent, all 
the annual conferences respectively, shall have power to call a General Conference, 
if they judge it necessary at any time. 

‘©3. At all times when the General Conference is met, it shall take two-thirds of the 
representatives of all the annual conferences to make a quorum for transacting 
business. 

“4, One of the general superintendents shall preside in the General Conference ; 
but in case no general superintendent be present, the General Conference shall 
choose a president pro tem. 

«5. The General Conference shall have full powers to make rules and regula- 
tions for our Church, under the following limitations and restrictions, viz :—’’ 


The six articles that Iam going to read are known under the technical name of 
“ Restrictive Articles.”” I may here also observe, that the designation ‘‘ General 
Superintendents,”’ in what I have read, is the name given to their bishops. 


“1. The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our articles of reli- 
gion, nor establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present 
existing and established standards of doctrine. 

“2. They shall not allow of more than one representative for every fourteen 
members of the annual conference, nor allow of a less number than one for every 
thirty : provided, nevertheless, that when there shall be in any annual conference a 
fraction of two-thirds the number which shall be fixed for the ratio of representation, 
such annual conference shall be entitled to an additional delegate for such frac- 
tion; and provided, also, that no conference shall be denied the privilege of two de- 
legates. 

cs 3. They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our government, so as to 
do away episcopacy, or destroy the plan of our itinerant general superintendency. 

“4. They shall not revoke or change the general rules of the United Societies. 

«« 5. They shall not do away the privileges of our ministers or preachers of trial by 
a committee, and of an appeal; neither shall they do away the privileges of our 
members of trial before the society, or by a committee, and of an appeal. 

“*6. They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book-Concem, nor of the Char- 
ter Fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of the travelling, supernumerary, 
superannuated and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children. Provided, 
nevertheless, that upon the concurrent recommendation of three-fourths of all the 
members of the several annual conferences, who shall be present and.vote on such 
recommendation, then a majority of two-thirds of the General Conference succeeding 
shall suffice to alter any of the above restrictions, excepting the first article: and 
also, whenever such alteration or alterations shall have been first recommended 
by two-thirds of the General Conference, so soon as three-fourths of the members of 
all the annual conferences shall have concurred as aforesaid, such alteration or alte- 
rations shall take effect.””—Pp. 21-24. 


“ Of the Annual Conferences. 


‘* Quest. 3. Who shall attend the yearly conferences ? 
“ Ans. All the travelling preachers who are in full connexion, and those who are 
to be received into full connexion.’’—P. 24. 


“‘ Of the Allowance to the Ministers and Preachers, and to their Wives, Widows, and 
Children. 


“1. The annual allowance of the married travelling, supernumerary, and super- 
annuated preachers, and the bishops, shall be two hundred dollars, and their travel- 
ling expenses. 

“2. The annual allowance of the unmarried travelling, supernumerary, and super- 
annuated preachers, and bishops, shall be one hundred dollars, and their travelling 
expenses. 


‘3, Each child of a travelling preacher or bishop shall be allowed sixteen dollars 


30 


annually, to the age of seven years, and twenty-four dollars annually from the age 
of seven to fourteen years; and those preachers whose wives are dead shall be 
allowed for each child annually a sum sufficient to pay the board of such child or 
children during the above term of years: Nevertheless, this rule shall not apply to 
the children of preachers whose families are provided for by other means in their 
circuits respectively. f 

‘4. The annual allowance of the widows of travelling, superannuated, worn-out, and 
supernumerary preachers, and the bishops, shall be one hundred dollars. 

“5. The orphans of travelling, supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out 
preachers, and the bishops, shall be allowed by the annual conferences the same 
sums respectively which are allowed to the children of living preachers. And on the 
death of a preacher leaving a child or children without so much of worldly goods as 
should be necessary to his, her, or their support, the annual conference of which he 
was a member shall raise, in such a manner as may be deemed best, a yearly sum 
for the subsistence and education of such orphan child or children, until he, she, or 
they, shall have arrived at fourteen years of age. The amount of which yearly 
sum shall be fixed by a committee of the conference at each session in advance.”’— 
Pp. 181, 182. 


Now, if your Honours please, I propose to read historical documents, to show 
how this power of the General Conferences has taken its shape from time to time ; 
so that it may be seen what has been done, how it has arisen, and how it has grown 
up. Iam about to read an extract from Emory’s History of the Discipline. By 
“ Discipline ” is meant the book of that designation containing the articles of religion 
and everything relating to this Church. 


“Tn our civil governments the statutes are scattered through the several volumes 
of laws, which have been published from time to time, and therefore these are all 
preserved, But, in the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Discipline, as revised at each 
General Conference, being in itself complete, supplants all that had gone before it, 
and the previous editions are cast aside, as of no further use. Thus it has con- 
tinued, until now nearly sixty years have elapsed since the organization of the Church, 
and the Discipline has undergone about twenty distinct revisions.””—P. 3. 


For the present I pass over the questions which relate to slavery, as I propose to 
read all those parts which relate to that subject together, and distinct from other 
questions. I proceed, therefore, to page 3 of the first of the proofs :— 


*'The close of the year 1784 constituted a new and most important epoch in Ame- 
rican Methodism. The independence of the United States having been confirmed 
by the peace of 1783, the authority of England over them, both civil and ecclesiasti- 
eal, came to anend. ‘The connexion with the Church of England being thus provi- 
dentially dissolved, Mr. Wesley, who had always resisted a separation from it, took 
measures, on the application of the American societies, to organize them into a 
Church. In explanation of his views and wishes, he addressed to the brethren in 
America the following letter :— 


““<Bristot, SEPTEMBER 10, 1784. 
“¢ To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our Brethren in North America :— 


«© ¢]. By a very uncommon train of providences, many of the provinces of North 
America are totally disjomed from the British empire, and erected into independent 
States. ‘The English government has no authority over them, either civil or eccle- 
siastical, any more than over the States of Holland. A civil authority is exercised 
over them, partly by the congress, partly by the state assemblies. But no one either 
exercises or claims any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar situation 
some thousands of the inhabitants of these States desire my advice; and in compli- 
ance with their desire I have drawn up a little sketch. . 

*««2. Lord King’s account of the primitive Church convinced me, many years ago, 
that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and, consequently, have the same 
tight to ordain. For many years I have been importuned, from time to time, to ex- 


31 


ercise this right, by ordaining part of our travelling preachers; but I have still re- 
fused, not only for peace’ sake, but because I was determined as little as possible to 
violate the established order of the national Church to which I belonged. 

“«¢3. But the case is widely different between England and North America. 
Here there are bishops who have a legal jurisdiction. In America there are none, 
and but few parish ministers; so that for some hundred miles together there is none 
either to baptize or to administer the Lord’s Supper. _ Here, therefore, my scruples 
are at an end; and I conceive myself at full liberty, as I violate no order, and invade 
no man’s right, by appointing and sending labourers into the harvest. 

«<4. J have, accordingly, appointed Dr. Coxr, and Mr. Francts Assury to be 
joint superintendents over our brethren in North America; as also Ricuarp Wuat- 
coat and Tuomas Vasey to act as elders among them, by baptizing and administer- 
ing the Lord’s Supper. 

“¢5. If any one will point out a more rational and Scriptural way of feeding and 
guiding those poor sheep in the wilderness, I will gladly embrace it. At present I 
cannot see any better method than that I have taken. 

«6. It has indeed been proposed to desire the English bishops to ordain part of 
our preachers for America. But to this I object: (1.) I desired the bishop of Lon- 
don to ordai one only, but could not prevail. (2.) If they consented, we know the 
slowness of their proceedings; but the matter admits of no delay. (3.) If they 
would ordain them now, they would likewise expect to govern them. And how 
grievously would this entangle us! (4.) As our American brethren are now totally 
disentangled both from the state and from the English hierarchy, we dare not entan- 
gle them again either with the one or the other. They are now at full liberty sim- 
ply to follow the Scriptures and the primitive Church. And we judge it best that 
they should stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has so strangely made them 
free.—Pp. 22-24. Joun Westey.’” 


I continue to read on the 5th page of No.1, of the Proofs, and our object in 
reading this is to show that the Methodist Episcopal Church had its origin in a sepa- 
ration, which did not involve them in any differences of doctrine, or a secession from 
their English brethren. 


“To carry into effect the proposed organization, a General Conference of 
preachers was called, to meet in Baltimore at Christmas, 1784. Sixty out of the 
eighty-three preachers, then in the travelling connexion, attended at the appointed 
time. ‘At this conference,’ say the Annual Minutes for 1785, ‘it was unanimously 
agreed that circumstances made it expedient for us to become a separate body, 
under the denomination of ‘‘ The Methodist Episcopal Church.”’’ And again they 
say, ‘ We formed ourselves into an independent Church ; and following the counsel 
of Mr. John Wesley, who recommended the episcopal mode of Church government, 
we thought it best to become an episcopal Church, making the episcopal office elec- 
tive, and the elected superintendent or bishop amenable to the body of ministers and 
preachers.’ They adopted a Form of Discipline for the government of the Church. 
This was substantially the same with the Large Minates, the principal alterations 
being only such as were necessary to adapt it to the state of things in America. As 
this was the first Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, it is here republished 
entire, together with the portions of the Large Minutes which were left out or altered. 
Those parts of the Large Minutes which were left out of the Discipline of 1784, are here 
enclosed in brackets, and, when the passages are long, are printed in smaller type ; 
while what was contained in the latter, and not in the former, is printed in italics. 
Where there has been merely a substitution of one passage for another, the language 
of the Large Minutes is given at the foot of the page. The figures in parentheses 
refer to the Large Minutes. 


“«« Minutes of several Conversations between the Rev. Thomas Coke, LL.D., the 
Rev. Francis Asbury, and others, at a Conference, begun in Baltimore, in the 
State of Maryland, on Monday, the 27th of December, in the year 1784.* 


“ < Quest. 2. What can be done in order to the future union of the Methodists ? 
“« Ans. During the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his sons 


* First Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as compared with Large Minutes, 


32 


in the gospel, ready, in matters belonging to Church government, to obey his commands. 
And we do engage, after his death, to do everything that we judge consistent with the 
cause of religion in America and the political interests of these States, to preserve and 
promote our union with the Methodists in Europe. 

“« Quest. 3. As thé ecclesiastical as well as civil affairs of these United Staies have 
passed through a very considerable change by the Revolution, what plan of Church go- 
vernment shall we hereafter pursue ? 

“« Ans. We will form ourselves into an Episcopal Church, under the direction of 
superintendents, elders, deacons, and helpers, according to the forms of ordination an- 
nexed to our Liturgy, and the Form of Discipline set forth in these Minutes. 

“ ¢ Quest. 4. (3.) What may we reasonably believe to be God’s design in raising up 
the preachers called Methodists ? 

“« Ans. [Not to form any new sect ; but] to reform the continent, [particularly the 
Church ;] and to spread Scriptural holiness over these lands.’—Pp. 25-27.” 


For the reasons before given, I pass over the passages on pp. 7, 8, and 9, which 
relate to slavery, and come to p. 10. 


‘¢1787.—In 1787 the Discipline underwent an entire change in its form. It will 
have been perceived, that the first and second editions consisted of a series of ques- 
tions and answers, arranged with very little method. The book was now divided 
into sections, with appropriate heads.-—P. 81. 


“ Of the Origin of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 


“ 1789.—* Sec. 3. On the Nature and Constitution of our Church. 

«We are thoroughly convinced that the Church of England, to which we have 
been united, is deficient in several of the most important parts of Christian disci- 
pline ; and that (a few ministers and members excepted) it has lost the life and 
power of religion. We are not ignorant of the spirit and design it has ever 
discovered in Europe, of rising to pre-eminence and worldly dignities by virtue of a 
national establishment, and by the most servile devotion to the will of temporal go- 
vernors: and we fear the same spirit will lead the same Church in these United 
States (though altered in its name) to similar designs and attempts, if the number 
and strength of its members will ever afford a probability of success ; and particu- 
larly to obtain a national establishment, which we cordially abhor as the great bane 
of truth and holiness, and consequently a great impediment to the progress of vital 
Christianity. 

‘««¢ For these reasons we have thought it our duty to form ourselves into an inde- 
pendent Church. And as the most excellent mode of Church government, according 
to our maturest judgment, is that of a moderate episcopacy, and as we are persuaded 
that the uninterrupted succession of bishops from the apostles can be proved neither 
from Scripture nor antiquity, we therefore have constituted ourselves into an episco- 
pal Church, under the direction of bishops, elders, deacons, and preachers, according 
to the forms of ordination annexed to our Prayer-book, and the reguiations laid down 
in this form of Discipline.’ 


“© ¢ Sec. 4. On constituting of bishops, and their duty. 

‘<¢ Quest. 1. What is the proper origin of the episcopal authority in our Church 2 

«<¢ Ans. In the year 1784 the Rev. John Wesley, who, under God, has been the 
father of the great revival of religion now extending over the earth by the means of 
the Methodists, determined, at the intercession of multitudes of his spiritual children 
on this continent, to ordain ministers for America, and for this purpose sent over 
three regularly-ordained clergy ; but preferring the episcopal mode of Church go- 
vernment to any other, he solemnly set apart, by the imposition of his hands and 
prayer, one of them, namely, Thomas Coke, doctor of civil law, late of Jesus College, 
in the University of Oxford, for the episcopal office; and having delivered to him 
letters of episcopal orders, commissioned and directed him to set apart Francis 
Asbury, then general assistant of the Methodist Society in America, for the same 
episcopal office, he, the said Francis Asbury, being first ordained deacon and elder. 
In consequence of which, the said Francis Asbury was solemnly set apart for the 
said episcopal office by prayer and the imposition of the hands of the said Thomas 


33 


Coke, other regularly-ordained ministers assisting in the sacred ceremony. At which 
time the General Conference held at Baltimore did unanimously receive the said 
Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury as their bishops, being fully satisfied of the 
validity of their episcopal ordination.’—Pp. 93, 94. 


“ Of the General and Annual Conferences. 


“Of the General Conference. 


“‘ Nothing appears on this subject, until 1792, when the first General Conference, 
after the organization of the Church, was held. We then find the following :— 

“€ 1792. * Quest. 2. Who shall compose the General Conference ? 

*¢ Ans. All the travelling preachers who shall be in full connexion at the time of 
holding the Conference. 

‘*¢ Quest. 3. When and where shall the next General Conference be held ? 

*«« Ans. On the first day of November, in the year 1796, in the town of Baltimore.’ 

“1796. Question 3, struck out. 

“1800. An additional qualification for membership was added, namely :—to ‘have 
travelled four years.’ 

«1804. It was provided that the ‘four years’ should date ‘from the time that 
they were received on trial by an annual conference.’ 

‘“* 1808. This was the last meeting of a General Conference, composed of all the 
preachers who had travelled four years. It was then resolved to have, in future, a 
delegated General Conference, and the following was adopted as its constitution, in 
lieu of the former :— 

«Quest. 2. Who shall compose the General Conference, and what are the regu- 
lations and powers belonging to it ? 

*«¢ Ans. 1. The General Conference shall be composed of one member for every 
five members of each annual conference, to be appointed either by seniority or choice, 
at the discretion of such annual conference ; yet so that such representatives shall 
shall have travelled at least four full calendar years from the time that they were re- 
ceived on trial by an annual conference, and are in full connexion at the time of 
holding the Conference. 

«©<2. The General Conference shall meet on the first day of May, in the year of 
our Lord 1812, in the city of New-York, and thenceforward on the first day of May, 
once in four years perpetually, in such place or places as shall be fixed on by the 
General Conference from time to time: but the general superintendents, with or by 
the advice of all the annual conferences, or if there be no general superintendent, all 
the annual conferences xespectively, shall have power to call a General Conference, 
if they judge it necessary, at any time. 

«¢¢3, At all times when the General Conference is met, it shall take two-thirds 
of the representatives of all the annual conferences to make a quorum for transacting 
business. 

«4. One of the general superintendents shall preside in the General Confer- 
ence; but in case no general superintendent be present, the General Conference 
shall choose a president pro tem. 

*©«5. The General Conference shall have full powers to make rules and regula- 
tions for our Church, under the following limitations and restrictions, namely :— 

“©¢1, The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of 
Religion, nor establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present 
existing and established standards of doctrine. 

“«¢¢2. They shall not allow of more than one representative for every five mem- 
bers of the annual conference, nor allow of a less number than one for every seven. 

«« «3. ‘They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our government, so as to 
do away episcopacy, or destroy the plan of our itinerant general superintendency. 

“<4. They shall not revoke or change the general rules of the United Societies. 

««¢5. They shall not do away the privileges of our ministers or preachers of trial 
by a committee, and of an appeal: neither shall they do away the privileges of our 
members of trial before the society, or by a committee, and of an appeal. 

««¢6, They shall not appropriate the prodace of the Book Concern, nor of the 
Chartered Fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of the travelling, super- 
numerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows,and children. 

‘¢ Provided, nevertheless, that upon the joint recommendation of all the annual 


3 


3x 


conferences, then a majority of two-thirds of the General Conference succeeding shall 
suffice to alter any of the above restrictions.’ 

“1816. The ratio of representation, in Ans. 1., was altered to one for every 
seven. 

‘1832. The former proviso, at the close of the restrictive rules, was struck out, 
and the following substituted :—‘ Provided, nevertheless, that upon the concurrent 
recommendation of three-fourths of all the members of the several annual confer- 
ences, who shall be present and vote on such recommendation, then a majority of 
two-thirds of the General Conference succeeding shall suffice to alter any of the 
above restrictions excepting the first article ; and also, whenever such alteration or 
alterations shall have been first recommended by two-thirds of the General Confer- 
ence, so soon as three-fourths of the members of all the annual conferences shall have 
concurred as aforesaid, such alteration or alterations shall take effect.’ 

‘1836. ‘The ratio of representation was altered to one for every twenty-one ; 
and to allow this, the second of the restrictive rules was changed to the following :— 

«2. They shall not allow of more than one representative for every fourteen mem- 
bers of the annual conference, nor allow of a less number than one for every thirty : 
provided, nevertheless, that when there shall be in any annual conference a fraction 
of two-thirds the number which shall be fixed for the ratio of representation, such 
annual conference shall be entitled to an additional delegate for such fraction ; and 
provided, also, that no conference shall be denied the privilege of two delegates.’ 
—Pp. 111-114. 


“ Bishops and their Duty. 

“1792. ‘ Quest. 3. What is the bishop’s duty ? 

‘“«¢ Ans. 1. To preside in our conferences. 

«<2. To fix the appointments of the preachers for the several circuits. 

‘«¢ 3. In the intervals of the conferences to change, receive, or suspend preachers, 
as necessity may require. 

“<4. To travel through the connexion at large. 

«“¢. To oversce the spiritual and temporal business of the societies. 

‘“«¢§. To ordain bishops, elders, and deacons. 

‘“* ¢ Quest. 4. To whom is the bishop amenable for his conduct ? 

‘««¢ Ans. To the General Conference, who have power to expel him for improper 
conduct, if they see it necessary. 

‘«¢ Quest. 5. What provision shall be made for the trial of an immoral bishop, in 
the interval of the General Conference ? 

“¢ Ans. If a bishop be guilty of immorality, three travelling elders shall call wpon 
him, and examine him on the subject: and if the three elders verily believe that the 
bishop is guilty of the crime, they shall call to their aid two presiding elders from 
two districts in the neighbourhood of that where the crime was committed, each of 
which presiding elders shall bring with him two elders, or an elder and a deacon. 
The above-mentioned nine persons shall form a conference, to examine into the 
charge brought against the bishop; and if two-thirds of them verily believe him to be 
guilty of the crime laid to his charge, they shall have authority to suspend the bishop 
till the ensuing General Conference, and the districts shall be regulated in the 
mean time as is provided in the case of the death of a bishop.’—Pp. 121, 122. 

«1804. To the second of the bishop’s duties (Question 3) is added this clause : 
‘ Provided he shall not allow any preacher to remain in the same station more than 
two years successively ; excepting the presiding elders, the editor and general book- 
steward, the assistant editor and general book-steward, the supernumerary, super- 
annuated, and worn out preachers.’ To the third is added, ‘and as the Discipline 
directs.’ 

“Tn the answer to Question 5, the word ‘ guilty,’ in the first line, is changed to 
‘accused,’ and the following clause is added at the close :—‘ But no accusation 
shall be received against a bishop except it be delivered in writing, signed by those 
who are to prove the crime: and a copy of the accusation shall be given to the ac- 
cused bishop.’—P. 122.” ‘ 


I will now read, if your Honours please, some extracts from the printed Journals 
and Documents of the General Conference in relation to the Canada Conference. It 
seems that the Canada Methodists separated from the Methodists of this country. 


3* 


35 


The action of the Methodist body on that subject we have thought to be material to 
notice. I will read, beginning on page 32. 


“May 5, 1828.—A petition from the Canada Annual Conference was presented by 
William Ryerson, praying that they may be separated from the jurisdiction of the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States; which 
was, on motion, referred to a special committee, to consist of seven members. 


“THE PETITION. 


“¢To the Bishops and Members of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, assembled at Pittsburgh :— 


““¢ RevEREND Faruers anp BretHren:—The Canada Conference having, after 
mature deliberation, deemed a separation expedient, most humbly pray that they 
may be set off a separate and independent Church in Canada. 

‘««¢ Your petitioners are induced to present this their humble prayer for the follow- 
ing reasons :— 

“1st. Our political relations, and the political feelings of a great part of the com- 
munity, are such that we labour under many very serious embarrassments on account 
of our union with the United States; frem which embarrassments we would, in all 
probability, be relieved by a separation. 

««<«2d. The local circumstances of our societies in this province ; the rapid increase 
and extension of the work, both among the white inhabitants and the Indians; the 
prospects of division among ourselves, if our present relation be continnued—render 
it necessary for us to be under ecclesiastical regulations somewhat of a peculiar 
character, so as to suit our local circumstances. These circumstances, together 
with our being scattered over a large country, render it highly necessary to have a 
superintendent who may devote himself exclusively to the interests of the Church in 
this province. By this means he would be identified with us, would more sensibly 
feel our interests his own, and his influence would be proportionably greater in pre- 
serving us in the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace. 

‘««¢3d. It is highly probable we shall obtain some important religious privileges by 
becoming a separate body. 

“¢4th. In the event of a war between the two nations, it would be altogether im- 
practicable for a superintendent to discharge the duties of the office unless he be 
resident in this province. 

““¢b5th. It is the general wish of our people in this province to become separate ; 
nor will they, according to present appearances, be satisfied without such separation. 

«*¢These, reverend fathers and brethren, are some of the principal reasons which 
mduce us to pray for an independent ecclesiastical establishment in Upper Canada. 

“¢ Your petitioners, likewise, most humbly and earnestly solicit that the General 
Conference may also be pleased, 

“«¢ 1st. To maintain with the British Conference, as far as practicable, the main 
principles of the late arrangements with regard to Canada. 

«“¢2d. That the General Conference will appoint such an individual for a superin- 
tendent of our societies in Canada as may be nominated by the delegates of the 
Canada Conference. 

“©¢3d. That the Church in Canada may be embraced in the general and friendly 
principle recognised by the two connexions,—‘‘'The Wesleyan Methodists are the 
same in every part of the world.” 

“¢Ath. That the General Conference will, together with an independent establish- 
ment, be pleased to grant your petitioners a portion of the Book Concern, of the 
Chartered Fund, and a portion of the fund of the Missionary Society. 

“¢¢ James RicHaRDsoN, 
“«¢ September 7, 1827. Sec. Canada Conf.’ 


“May 6, 1828.—The committee on the petition from Canada was announced by 
the chair, and consists of the following members, to wit :— 

‘<N. Bangs, Isaac Bonny, Charles Pitman, Zachariah Paddock, Russel Bigalow, 
and Caleb Leach. 


36 


\ 


“ Report of the Committee on Canada Affairs. 


***' The Committee on Canada Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of the 
Canada Conference praying this General Conference to grant a separate establish- 
ment of that branch of the Methodist Episcopal Church situated in the Province of 
Upper Canada, under certain conditions expressed in said petition, beg leave to 
report :— 

Mee That, having heard the statements of the delegation from the Canada Conference 
explanatory of the situation of the Church in that Province, and of the necessity and 
expediency of the measure prayed for in the petition; and also considered the peti- 
tion itself, together with the address of the Canada Conference to the several annual 
conferences in the United States, the committee are unanimously of the opinion, that, 
nowever peculiar may be the situation of our brethren in Canada, and however much 
we may sympathize with them in their present state of perplexity, this General Con- 
ference cannot consistently grant them a separate Church establishment, according to 
the prayer of the petitioners. ‘The committee, therefore, recommend to the General 
Conference the adoption of the following resolutions :— 

‘<¢]. That, inasmuch as the several annual conferences have not recommended it 
to the General Conference, it is unconstitutional, and also, under the circumstances, 
mexpedient, to grant the prayer of the petitioners for a separate Church establish- 
ment in Upper Canada. 

«¢2. That an affectionate circular address be prepared by this General Conference, 
stating the reasons why their request cannot be granted, and expressing the unabated 
attachment of this Conference for their brethren in Canada, and their earnest desire 
for their continuance with them in the fellowship of the Church. 

«<¢ All which is respectfully submitted. 

“<« PyrprspurGH, May 12, 1828. (Signed, ) N. Banes, Chairman.’ 


““ May 17.—Rev. John Ryerson, one of the delegates from the Canada Conference, 
offered the followmg substitute for the report under consideration :— 


*«¢ Whereas the Canada Annual Conference, situated in the Province of Upper 
Canada, under a foreign government, have, in their memorial, presented to this Con- 
terence the disabilities under which they labour, in consequence of their union with 
2 foreign ecclesiastical government, and setting forth their desire to be set off as a 
separate Church establishment ; and whereas this General Conference disclaim all 
right to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction under such circumstances, except by mu- 
tual agreement :— 

“¢ 1. Resolved, therefore, by the delegates of the annual conferences in General 
Conference assembled, that the compact existing between the Canada Annual Con- 
ference and the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States be, and hereby is, 
dissolved by mutual consent. 

“<2. That our superintendents or superintendent be, and hereby are, respectfully 
advised and requested to ordain such person as may be elected by the Canada Con- 
ference a superintendent for the Canada connexion. 

‘«¢ 3. That we do hereby recommend to our brethren in Canada to adopt the form 
of government of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, with such 
modifications as their particular relations shall render necessary. 

«“*4. That we do hereby express to our Canada brethren our sincere desire that 
the most friendly feeling may exist between them and the connexion of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in the United States. 

“«5. That the claims of the Canada Conference on our Book Concern and Char- 
tered Fund, and any other claims they may suppose they justly have, shall be left 
open for future negotiation and adjustment between the two connexions. 

G. R. Jonss. 
* « May 17th. Moses Crus.’ 


‘‘ The question on the first resolution was decided in the effirmative—104 for, and 
43 against it. The other four resolutions were, on motion, referred to a special 
committee, to consist of five members. ‘The president reported the names of the 
committee, which were as follows :— 

“ John Emory, Wilbur Fisk, G. R. Jones, Beverly Waugh, Robert Paine. 

“The committee reported as follows :— 

‘*¢ Resolved by the delegates of the annual conferences in General Conference as- 


37 


sembled, that, whereas the jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States of America has heretofore been extended over the ministers and mem- 
bers im connexion with said Church in the Province of Upper Canada, by mutual 
agreement, and by the consent and desire of our brethren in that province ; and 
whereas this General Conference is satisfactorily assured that our brethren in the said 
Province, under peculiar and pressing circumstances, do now desire to organize 
themselves into a distinct Methodist Episcopal Church, in friendly relations with the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, therefore be it resolved, and it is 
hereby resolved, by the delegates of the annual conferences in General Conference 
assembled :— 

“¢¢]. If the annual conference in Upper Canada, at its ensuing session, or any suc- 
ceeding session previously to the next General Conference, shall definitely determine 
on this course, and elect a general superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in that province, this General Conference does hereby authorize any one or more of 
the general superintendents of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, 
with the assistance of any two or mere elders, to ordain such general superintendent 
for the said Church in Upper Canada, provided always that nothing herein contained 
be contrary to, or inconsistent with, the laws existing in the said Province ; and pro- 
vided that no such general superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Upper 
Canada, or any of his successors in office, shall at any time exercise any ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction whatever in any part of the United States, or of the territories thereof; 
and provided also that this article shall be expressly ratified and agreed to by the said 
Canada Annual Cenference, before any such ordination shall take place. 

«2. That the delegate who has been selected by this General Conference to attend 
the ensuing annual conference of the British Wesleyan Methodist Connexion, be, 
and hereby is, instructed to express to that body the earnest and affectionate desire of 
this General Conference, that the arrangement made with that Connexion in relation to 
the labours of their missionaries in Upper Canada may still be maintained and observed. 

“«¢3. That our brethren and friends, ministers or others, in Upper Canada, shall at 
all times, at their request, be furnished with any of our books and periodical publica- 
tions on the same terms with those by which our agents are regulated in furnishing 
them in the United States: and until there shall be an adjustment of any claims 
which the Canada Church may have on this connexion, the Book Agents shall divide 
to the said Canada Church an equal proportion of any annual dividend which may be 
made from the Book Concern to the several annual conferences respectively ; pro- 
vided, however, that the aforesaid dividend shall be apportioned to the Canada Church 
only as long as they may continue to support and patronize our Book Concern, as in 
time past. 

“«¢ Respectfully submitted. (Signed) W. Fisx, Chairman. 

“< PirrspurcH, May 20, 1828.’ 


‘““ Wepnespay Mornine, May 21.—It was, on motion, Resolved, That the subject 
of the petition from the Canada Conference be resumed: Whereupon, the resolu- 
tions, as reported by the last committee appointed on that subject, were read. It was 
then resolved, that the subject shall now be considered and acted on. 

“Samuel H. Thompson moved, and it was seconded, that the resolutions as re- 
ported by the committee be adopted. The question being taken, it was decided in 
the affirmative—108 voting in favour of adoption, and 22 against it. 

“ May 23.—J. Emory moved, and it was seconded, that the resolution first adopted 
on the subject of the separation of the Canada Conference from the Connexion in the 
United States be re-considered ; and tke motion prevailed. It was then resolved, on 
motion, that this resolution be rescinded. 

“May 4, 1832.—An address from the delegates of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church of Canada was presented and read, and, on motion, that part of it relating to 
the Book Concern was referred to the Committee on the Book Concern, and that part 
of it relating to Missions, referred to the Committee on Missions. 

‘May 18.—On motion, the report of the Committee on the Book Concem respecting 
the Canada business was called up. (‘The delegates, Messrs. William Case, Franklin 
Metcalf, and William Ryerson, having presented their certificates, which were ac- 

cepted.) The report of the committee was then read, and seconded that it be adopted. 

‘““May 19.—The report on the Canada business was called up, and, after some 
remarks on the subject, D. Ostrander moved an amendment, which was withdrawn. 


38 


‘« Brothers Emory, Ryerson, and others, addressed the Conference on the subject 
until the hour of adjournment. 

«* May 21.—On motion, the consideration of the report on the Canada business was 
resumed. The report was read. Brother Case, one of the delegates from Canada, 
requested that Brother Fisk might be permitted to address the Conference for him, 
and in his place, to give his views on the subject, which was granted,—and replies 
were made by Brothers Few, Ryerson, &c., when it was moved and seconded that 
the vote should be taken without further debate. The question on the first resolu- 
tion in the report was then read, voted, and lost—75 to 130. On motion by J. 
Emory, seconded by W. Capers, to amend the report, such amendment, together 
with the remaining items in the report, were referred to a select committee of five, 
to examine and report thereon. 

‘Tn the afternoon session, the select committee on the Canada business was an- 
nounced by the president, (Bishop Hedding,)—namely, D. Ostrander, G. Pickering, 
J. Emory, L. Clark, and Abner Chase. 

“* May 23.—The report on the Canada business was then read by the secretary, 
and the first resolution taken up for consideration. Brothers Case, Ostrander, Cox, 
Winans, Ryerson, Emory, and others, spoke on the subject. The previous question 
was called for. Bishop Soule requested leave, and stated some points. Brother 
Ostrander moved an amendment, which was adopted. ‘The vote on the previous 
question was then taken and carried. It was then moved to adopt the resolution as 
amended, voted and carricd—153 to 34. It was then moved to adopt the preamble 
to the report ; an amendment was moved and withdrawn. N. Bangs moved to take 
the previous gquestion—carried. The question on the adoption of the preamble was 
then taken and carried—103 to 63. 

“ On motion of A. Brunson, seconded by W. Arnold, an amendment was proposed, 
which was adopted. The whole report amended, read thus, viz :— 

“The report of this committee was made and adopted May 23, as follows :— 

«««¢'The committee to whom was referred the business of the negotiation with the 
delegates of the Canada Conference on the subject of our Book Concern, having had 
the same under their serious consideration, are of opinion that, in consideration of 
their former relation to us, and the friendly feeling and brotherly affection which now 
exist between the two Connexions, as well as in view of the liberal and efficient sup- 
port they have formerly given to the Concern, an apportionment of the property of 
the Concern ought to be made to them. But, as constitutional difficulties are 
believed to be in the way of such an appropriation by this Conference, because they 
have not been instructed on this subject by their constituents, aceording to the 
proviso at the end of the restrictive regulations, they beg leave to submit, for the 
adoption of the Conference, the following resolutions :— 

“¢ Resolved, That if three-fourths of all the members of the several annual confer- 
ences who shall be present and vote on the subject shall concur herein, and as soon 
as the fact of such concurrence shall be.certified by the secretaries of the several an- 
nual conferences, then the book agents and book committee in New-York shall be, 
and they are hereby, authorized and directed to settle with the agents of the Canada 
Conference, on the following principles and preliminaries, namely :— 

‘«¢ 1st. The dividend shall be made according to the proportion that the number of 
the travelling preachers in the Canada Conference bears to the number of the travel- 
ling preachers in the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, including in, 
both estimates the superannuated preachers and those on trial. 

««< 2d. The amount of property to be divided shall be reckoned according to the 
first and largest estimate of stock in the late exhibit of the book agents, namely, 
$448,745 704, deducting therefrom debts due from the Concern, annuities, &c., 
estimated at $15,728 18, and the whole of the publishing fund, amounting to $16, 
928 28, making a total deduction (including credits to be allowed M. Ruter and C. 
Holliday) of $35,178 77, and leaving an amount to be divided of about $413,566 934. 

«3d. That the Canada Conference shall receive a full proportion of the unsaleable 
and saleable stock, and of the bad as well as the good debts, considering the stock 
and debts in Canada that belong to the Book Concern as so much of the dividend 
already paid, but to be estimated as forming a part of the general Book Concern, ac- 
cording to the manner of estimating the whole amount. 

*©¢4, When the adjustment shall have been made, according to the foregoing prelim- 
inaries, it shall be deemed a final settlement of all claims which the Canada Confer- 


39 


ence may be supposed to have on the Book Concern, or any other funds or property 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, in virtue of their former 
relation to us. 

“¢ Resolved, That our superintendents be, and they are hereby, respectfully re- 
quested to present the foregoing preamble and resolution to the annual conferences 
for their concurrence, as contemplated in the premises. 


«««The committee beg leave also to submit the following resolution :— 


“¢ Resolved, &c., That until the will of the annual conferences shall be ascertained, 
and a final settlement be made, the Canada Conference shall receive the same equal 
annual dividend of the profits of the Book Concern as heretofore.’ 

“5th. A motion for the adoption of this resolution was made, voted, and carried. 

“On motion, The secretary is hereby directed to furnish the delegates from Canada 
with a copy of the decision of this Conference on that business.” 


On page 46 your Honours will find the minutes of the committee on the Canada 
claims. ‘They are as follows :— 


“ Minutes of Committee. 
“ Cincinnati, Onto, May 6, 1836. 

“Committee on Canada claims met on Friday evening, May 6th, at the Preachers’ 
Office, Cincinnati. Committee consists of R. Payne, T. A. Morris, A. Griffith, M. 
Richardson, and C. Sherman. The whole committee present. C. Sherman chosen 
secretary. Rev. Mr. Lord presented to the committee a copy of the resolutions of 
the General Conference of 1828 and of 1832, on the subject of an appropriation from 
the Book Concern of the Methodist Episcopal Church to the Canada Conference, 
which was read. (See Doc. Nos. 1 and 2.) Copies of the resolutions of the annual 
conferences, concurring or non-concurring with the General Conference resolution, 
were then handed to the committee by Rev. B. Waugh, and read. (See Doc. No. 3.) 
The conferences concurring were as follow :— 


New-England Conference, held June, 1832... --......2 Ayes 73 Noes 1 
Maine Conference, held July 24, 1832.........-..--. cA Al Sie) 
New-Hampshire Conference, held August 8, 18382.... “ 71 sites 0 
Oneida: Conference, held, 183352. 5-.-...-...--¢.--.. ea id aT ey? 
Genesee Conference, held July, 1832_.......----.-. Ge, Sea L 
New-York Conference, held June 9, 1883.........-- “ 142 “« 13 

Six conferences. For concurrence, 503 Against, 17 


“The conferences non-concurring were as follow :— 
Kentucky Conference, held Oct. 22, 1832 Non-concurring, 66 Concurring, 0 
36 “c 





Indiana Conference, held October 17, 1832...... 6 0 
Pittsburgh Conference, held Aug. 23, 1832. ....-. < 61 if 6 
South Carolina Conference, held April 22, 1833... “ 26 “ 24 
Mississippi Conference, held May 15, 1833....... as 15 se 7 
Ohio Contérence asic us|, ceree ele ate ae Se t 62 st 28 
Holstein Conference, held March 29, 1833...-..- e 34 “ 8 
Virginia Conference, held March 6, 1833......-- “ 84 0 
Baltimore Conference, held April 5, 1833........ “« 90 “6 0 
Philadelphia Conference, held April 24, 1833. .... uF 89 S 1 
Miissourl Conference ss 0222 Sos.cu\s aa ciele a glee feet 6 24 sc 2 
Ste Orie CO ONICTENCE nie Fo akan sist emginahs nae a 41 FS 13 
Wilabama., COMLETENCEs 04 oc chs apc en poe be deadet & 22 “6 3 
Minos Conferences... uaa aks os Ne eS ie 19 “« 2 
‘Tennesses, Conferenes 2 22 255 2s oS ee yes ‘6 72 ‘“ 2 
Fifteen conferences non-concurring. Number for, 741 Against, 96 
1 503 
Whole number in the several conferences against, 758 For, 599 

“ “ 6s “6 for, 599 


Majority against granting Canada claims, 159 


40 


‘“‘ Brother Case then addressed the committee, making several remarks and state- 
ments in favour of the claims being answered. Committee was then addressed by 
brother Lord. After some information, obtained by brother Waugh, committee ad- 
journed, to meet again next Tuesday evening. 

(Signed,) C. Suerman, Sec’y. 


“The report of the committee appointed upon the subject of the Canada claim 
was presented and adopted May 19, as follows :— 


“The committee to whom was referred the communication from the conference 
of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in British North America, beg leave to report :— 

‘Your committee have given a serious, and they trust a candid, attention to the 
document referred to them. ‘They have invited before them the president of the 
Canada Conference, the Rev. William Lord, and the delegate from Canada, the 
Rey. William Case, and have listened with pleasure to their remarks, and perused 
with close attention a communication purporting to set forth the grounds of these 
claims. But inasmuch as the last General Conference did distinctly avow that con- 
stitutional restrictions prohibited their action, and proceeded to lay the question be- 
fore the several annual conferences, in order to obtain the decision of these primary 
bodies upon the subject, your committee were admonished that the task devolving 
upon them is limited to this single consideration, namely, Have the annual confer- 
ences determined against the claims of the Canada Conference? 

“This point is determined by the votes of all the annual conferences, which, be- 
ing properly authenticated, and having been carefully examined, stand as follows :— 


In favour of concurring with the General Conference of 1832__...... 599 
Axaingt Couturmringtse lok ee Vi ee tele eik Fd Eee 758 
Whole number of votes taken ........- 1357 


“This statement shows that, instead of three-fourths of the votes being in favour 
of obviating the constitutional restrictions, as the Discipline in such cases requires, a 
large majority have decided against it. And this decision your committee regard as 
final and conclusive against these claims. 

“But masmuch as the General Conference have ever claimed and exercised the 
right to regulate the discount at which our books may be sold to wholesale pur- 
chasers, and with a view to an amicable and final arrangement of all the difficulties 
which have existed on this subject, and especially with a sincere desire to go as 
far as justice to the Methodist Episcopal Church will authorize, to encourage and 
perpetuate the friendly and fraternal feelings which should ever exist between the 
different members of the great Methodist family, the committee submit to the con- 
sideration, and for the adoption, of the General Conference the following arrange- 
ment, mutually agreed to by the delegates from Canada and the book agents, and 
which we are assured will be satisfactory to our Canadian brethren, if sanctioned by 
this Conference. 


‘« Whereas the Canada Conference, now in connexion with the Wesleyan Method- 
ists of Great Britain, was formerly united to, and formed part of, the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church ; and whereas the union, which by mutual consent then subsisted, was 
dissolved at the earnest and repeated solicitations of the ministers and members of 
the Church in Canada, which was definitively determined upon by an act of the 
Canada Conference, who thereupon and subsequently did form a union with, and be- 
come a part of, the Wesleyan Methodist Connexion ; and whereas there has been a 
difference of opinion between the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Canada Con- 
ference in regard to the claim which has been urged by the Canada Conference, of 
an interest in, and a portion of, the Methodist Book Concem ; and whereas the de- 
cision of the several annual conferences, to whom the subject was referred by the Ge- 
neral Conference of 1832, has been adverse to the claim of the Canada Conference, - 
and has thereby precluded any further action of the General Conference on the ground 
of claim, as made by the Canada Conference ; but whereas this General Conference 
cherishes an affectionate remembrance of the Canada brethren, and is desirous to 
manifest its fraternal regard in every suitable way ; and whereas the Canada Confer- 
ence did, at its last session, appoint its president, the Rev. William Lord, and the 
Rey. Egerton Ryerson, delegates to this General Conference to negotiate its claims 
on the Book Concern, and the Rev. William Case, having been duly appointed to 


41 


take the place of Rev. E. Ryerson in the negotiation ; and whereas the said Rev. 
William Lord, president of the Canada Conference, and the Rev. William Case, 
have full powers to bring to an amicable termination the question pending between 
the two connexions, therefore it is hereby declared to be mutually understood and 
agreed, that the following plan shall be considered as an arrangement for the full and 
final adjustment and settlement of the matter at issue between the Canada Confer- 
ence and the Methodist Episcopal Church ; to wit, The agents of the Methodist 
Book Concern shall furnish to the book-steward of the Canada Conference any of 
the books which may be issued from its press at the following rates, subject to the 
conditions and provisions hereinafter named :— 

“1. The general alphabetical catalogue books, whether in sheets or bound, shall 
be sold at forty per cent. discount from the retail prices, as long as the present dis- 
count of one-third shall be made to wholesale purchasers ; but should the discount 
be hereafter changed to one-fourth, then, in that case, the books sold to the book- 
steward of the Canada Conference shall be charged at a discount of one-third from 
the retail prices which shall from time to time be affixed to them respectively. Pro- 
vided that this discount shall not apply to such books as may be reduced below the 
usual prices on account of rival publishers; and provided, also, that the Canada 
Conference shall give satisfactory security in regard to the payment of any debt 
which may be contracted with the Methodist Book Concern, within one year from 
the time such debt may be created. And it is also expressly understood and agreed, 
that no interest shall be demanded or paid on any such debts, unless payment shall 
be delayed beyond the period of credit before named, in which event interest shall be 
charged and paid, from and after the expiration of said credit term. It is also further 
provided, that all books which may be ordered by the book-steward of the Canada 
Conference shall be at the risk and expense of the said Conference, from the time 
they shall be forwarded from the Methodist Book Concern. 

“2. Sunday-school books and tracts shall be furnished to the book-steward of the 
Canada Conference at a premium of eighteen per cent., to be paid in general cata- 
logue books at retail prices ; and it is hereby declared to be understood and agreed, 
that the same provisions and conditions are to be adjudged applicable to Sunday- 
school books and tracts as have been specified above in regard to books generally. 

‘¢ 3. It is understood and agreed, that the privileges herein secured to the Canada 
Conference shall be binding on the Methodist Book Concern until the first day of 
May, 1852, next ensuing the present date ; Provided, also, that the said Canada 
Conference shall regularly and truly make annual settlements to the satisfaction of 
the agents of the Methodist Book-Concern, and not otherwise. 

“4. Finally, it is hereby mutually understood and agreed, that the foregoing ar- 
rangement is considered as a full, and definite, and satisfactory adjustment of the 
question which has arisen between the Canada Conference and the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church on the subject of the Methodist Book Concern. 


“Tn testimony whereof, the agents of the Methodist Book-Concern, and the dele- 
gates of the Canada Conference, have mutually affixed their respective signatures, 
this eighteenth day of May, 1836, in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio. 

(Signed) B. Wauven & T. Mason, Agents. 
Wixuram Lorp, | Delegates from 
Wit.iam Case, t Canada. 


“ May 23, 1832.—On motion of P. Akers, which was seconded, Resolved, that a 
copy of the resolution of the last General Conference by which the Canada Confer- 
ence was allowed to dissolve connexion with the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States ; and also a copy of the acts of this General Conference on Canada 
affairs, accompany the resolutions about to be presented to the annual confer- 
ences. 


I propose now, if your Honours please, to return to page 43, and to read from 
that and subsequent pages an address from the Canada Conference, held in 1833, 
to show that, notwithstanding their separation, the parties treated each other as 
members of the same body—the Methodist Episcopal Church—for all practical pur- 
poses. 


42 


“ To the Bishops and Members of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the United States. 


‘‘ REVEREND FatHers AND BRETHREN :—We rejoice to avail ourselves of this oc- 
casion to declare, in the words of the venerable Wesley in his last letter to America, 
‘that the Methodists are one people in all the world, and that it is their full deter- 
mination so to continue,— 


“ Though mountains rise, and oceans roll, 
To sever us in vain.”’ 


‘In connexion with you, we were born and nourished ; in connexion with you, we 
have laboured and prospered ; and from your example and liberality, and the coun- 
sels of two of your venerable bishops, and several of your highly esteemed preachers, 
we have derived assistance and advantages which have enabled us greatly to extend 
the work of God in this new country, and the grateful recollection of which will 
never be effaced from our minds. 

‘«s When the full period arrived in 1828, in which the welfare, harmony, and safety 
of our Church rendered it expedient for us to be organized into a separate and inde- 
pendent body, you candidly took into consideration our local circumstances, and 
generously complied with our wishes—and, at the same time continued to us the 
expression of your kindness and liberality. That separation, however, was not on 
our part, any more than on yours, a separation of doctrine, of discipline, of motive, or 
of affection, but only of political, geographical, and ecclesiastical boundary. Still 
with you we were one in heart, in aim, in doctrine, and discipline. Under the 
influence of this conviction and feeling, we sought to obtain a general superintendent 
from your connexion, and made successive applications to no less than four members 
of your conference to fill that highly important office overus. But all our applica- 
tions were unsuccessful, and our efforts to establish and settle our economy were 
fruitless. In this unsettled state of anxious suspense, we have been involved for the 
last five years, during which time we have been with difficulty, but mercifully, pre- 
served from agitation, division, and encroachment. Providence has at length opened 
the way for the settlement of our economy upon a permanent foundation. By the 
large influx of British emigration to this province, and especially of persons who had 
been connected with Methodist societies and congregations in Great Britain and 
Ireland, the attention of the Wesleyan Missionary Committee in London was particu- 
larly attracted, and pressing appeals were made to the Christian feelings and bene- 
volence of the British Conference from many of their former flocks for a supply of 
those ordinances which they had enjoyed in the land of their fathers. These cireum- 
stances, together with the admitted and notorious fact of our inadequacy as a body, 
both in regard to men and means, to supply all the religious wants of the white 
settlements and Indian tribes, induced the Wesleyan Missionary Committee about a 
year since to determine on sending a number of missionaries into Upper Canada. 
For this purpose the committee sent the Rev. Robert Alder as their representative 
to this province, to inquire into its religious condition. Between Mr. Alder and this 
conference a negotiation was commenced, which has now resulted in a union 
between the Canadian and British connexion. This measure has been accomplished 
upon a principle of perfect equality, without any sacrifice of principle or independence 
on either side, and with merely those changes in one or two features of the pruden- 
tial part of our economy, ‘ which our local circumstances require,’-—as stated and 
provided for in the articles of separation from your connexion in 1828. So that, 
without departing from either the letter or spirit of the resolutions of your body, in 
generously granting our request for a separation, we have, through the Divine bless- 
ing, been enabled to adopt a plan—the only and most efficient plan—by which divi- 
sions may be prevented among our own societies, and misunderstandings with others ; 
a plan which will secure the unity of Methodism throughout the province, and bring 
to our assistance a large addition of means and men to carry on the work of the Lord 
among the white population and the Indian tribes of North America ; a plan which 
has been adopted unanimously and cordially both by this and the British Conference. 

In this providential and gracious opening we recognise the peculiar hand of God, 
and we are persuaded you will rejoice with us in thus witnessing Methodism through- 

out the British empire, as throughout the United States, connected in a common 
Bond of union, and sustained and extended under a common management. Nor are 


AM 
‘* 


45 


we in this necessary and beneficial arrangement the less united and grateful to you 
as our fathers, brethren, and benefactors ; and we devoutly hope that no cireum- 
stance will occur which may tend to weaken our mutual confidence and affection in 
the final adjustment of those claims, the justice of which has been recognised and 
sanctioned by the majority of your body at two successive sessions. 

‘“‘ We shall rejoice to co-operate with you, and to assist you with native labourers, as 
far as in our power, until, by the blessing of God, the Western wilderness shall be 
illuminated by the light of the Gospel, and the banners of the Lamb shall be unfurled 
to the Pacific Ocean. 

“‘ We enjoy perfect harmony and peace throughout all our borders, and great pros- 
perity in many places. Our Church members amount to 16,039, and the blessings 
of the Lord our God are abundantly upon us. We rejoice to hear of your great 
success, and most devoutly pray that you may go on prospering more and more. _ 

“« By order and on behalf of the Conference of the Wesleyan Methodist Chureh in 
British North America. 

(Signed) “ Grorce Marspen, President. 
Ecerton Ryerson, Secretary. 
“York, Upper Canapa, October 9, 1833.” 


I will read next, if your Honours please, a few extracts in relation to alterations 
which have taken place from time to time in the restrictive rules :— 


“ May 22, 1828.—W. Fisk, for the committee to which had been referred the 
subject of recommending to the annual conferences some alterations in the restrictive 
rules, reported. The time of adjournment being near, it was moved and seconded 
to extend the session until six o’clock, and the motion was lost. It was then re- 
solved, on motion, to extend the session for fifteen minutes. During the discussion, 
the time of adjournment having nearly arrived, it was resolved, qn motion, to extend 
it ten minutes. A division of the above report was called for; and the question 
being taken on the first part, it was carried. The vote was then taken on the second 
and last part, and that was also carried. 

‘«« And then the Conference adjourned. 


“ The following is the report referred to above :— 


“<The committee to whom was referred the subject embraced in a resolution sug- 
gesting the propriety of providing for the alteration of one of the rules commonly 
called the restrictive rules, beg leave to report the following resolution :— 

“<< Resolved, That this General Conference respectfully suggest to the several 
annual conferences the propriety of recommending to the next General Conference 
so to alter and amend the rules of our Discipline, by which the General Conference 
is restricted in its powers to make rules and regulations for the Church, commonly 
called the restrictive rules, as to make the proviso at the close of the restrictive 
rules, No. 6, read thus,— 

“<¢ Provided nevertheless, That upon the concurrent recommendation of three- 
fourths of all the members of the several annual conferences who shall be present 
and vote on such recommendation, then a majority of two-thirds of the General Con- 
jab succeeding shall suffice to alter any such regulations excepting the first 
article. 

“<¢ And also, wheneyer such alteration or alterations shall have first been recom- 
mended by two-thirds of the General Conference, so soon as three-fourths of the 
members of the annual conferences shall have concurred as aforesaid with such re- 
commendation, such alteration or alterations shall take effect. 

“«« All which is respectfully submitted. W. Fisk, Chairman.’ 


“May 22, 1832.—The Committee on the Itinerancy beg leave to report the fol- 
lowing, as the result of their deliberations on the subject recommended to. them, viz. : 

«<T. Resolved, That this General Conference recommend to the several annual con- 
ferences for their concurrence and adoption, as provided in the sixth article of the 
restrictive rules, the following resolution to amend the second article of the said 
restrictive rules :— 

“<I. Resolved, That the second article of the restrictive rules be so altered asto 


read,— athe 


44 


«¢«They shall not allow of more than one representative for every fourteen 

members of the annual conference, nor allow for less number than one for every 
thirty: provided, nevertheless, that when there shall be in any annual conference a 
fraction of two-thirds the number which shall be fixed for the ratio of representation, 
such annual conference shall be entitled to an additional delegate for such fraction. 
And provided, also, that no conference shall be deprived the privilege of two dele- 
gates.” 
- “TIT. Resolved, That the secretary furnish each of the bishops with a copy of 
these resolutions, and they are hereby respectfully requested to present the same to 
the several annual conferences, or cause the same to be presented at their next ses- 
sion, for their concurrence ; and where the bishops or any two of the bishops shall 
have ascertained that three-fourths of all the members of the several annual confer- 
ences voting in the case have concurred with this General Conference, they shall 
certify the same, and cause such certificate to be printed in the minutes, and pub- 
lished three successive weeks in the Christian Advocate and Journal. 

“<TV. Resolved, That the ratio of representation for the next General Conference 
be one for every fourteen, provided the annual conferences concur im the alteration 
as above recommended by this conference. 

“ «And that the Discipline in Section 3, Answer 1 to Question 2, on page 19, 
shall thereupon be so altered as to read,— 

*« ««'The General Conference shall be composed of one member for every four- 
teen members of each annual conference,”’ &c. 


**1836.—The ratio of representation was altered to one for every twenty-one ; 
and to allow this, the second of the restrictive rules was changed to the follow- 
ing :— 

‘«« “They shall net allow of more than one representative for every fourteen mem- 
bers of the annual conference, nor allow of a less number than one for every thirty : 
provided, nevertheless, that when there shall be in any annual conference a fraction 
of two-thirds the number which shall be fixed for the ratio of representation, such 
annual conference shall be entitled te an additional delegate for such fraction; and 
provided, also, that no conference shail be denied the privilege of two delegates,’ ”’ 


Now, if your Honours please, I wiil read what relates to the subject of slavery. 
¥ will first read what appears in the Discipline as it stands on that subject. And first 
what is contained in the Discipline of 1840, under which, in fact, all these difficulties 
arose. 


« Of Slavery. 

“ Quest. What shall be done for the extirpation of the evil of slavery ? 

“Ans. 1. We declare that we are as much as ever convinced of the great evil of 
slavery : therefore no slaveholder shall be eligible to any official station in our 
Church hereafter, where the laws of the State in which he lives will admit of eman- 
eipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom. 

“2, When any travelling preacher becomes an owner of a slave or slaves, by any 
means, he shall forfeit his mimisterial character in our Church, unless he execute, if 
it be practicable, a legal emancipation ef such slaves, conformably to the laws of the 
State in which he lives. 

«3. All eur preachers shall prudently enforce upon our members the necessity of 
teaching their slaves to read the word ef God; and to allow them time to attend 
upon the public worship of God on our regular days of divine service. 

“4, Our coloured preachers and official members shail have all the privileges which 
are usual to others in the district and quarterly conferences, where the usages of the 
country do not forbid it. And the presiding elder may hold for them a separate dis- 
triet conference, where the number of coloured local preachers will justify it. 

“5. ‘The annual conferences may employ coloured preachers to travel and preach 
where their services are judged necessary ; provided that no one shall be so em- 
ployed without having been recommended according to the form of Discipline.—Pp. 
209, 210.” 


Now I turn, your Honours, to the extracts from “‘ Minutes of several Conversations 
between the Rev. Thomas Coke, LL.D., the Rev. Francis Asbury, and others, 
at a Conference begun in Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, on Monday, the 27th 


45 


December, in the year 1784.” This is the first Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, adopted at what is called the “‘ Chnstmas Conference.” 


*°¢ Quest. 41. Are there any directions to be given concerning the negroes ? 

“<« Ans. Let every preacher, as often as possible, meet them in class. And let the 
assistant always appoint a proper whate person as their leader. Let the assistants also 
make a regular return to theconference of the number of negroes in society im their 
respective circuits. 

“© < Quest. 42. What methods can we take to extirpate slavery 2 

“¢ Ans. We are deeply conscious of the impropriety of making new terms of com- 
munaion for a religious society already established, excepting on the most pressing oc- 
casion: and such we esteem the practice of holding our fellow-creatures in slavery. 
We view tt as contrary to the golden law of God on which hang all the law and the 
propheis, and the unalienable rights of mankind, as well as every principle of the re- 
volution, to holdin the deepest debasement, in a more abject slavery than 1s perhaps to be 
found in any part of the world except America, so many souls that are all capable of 
the image of God. 

“© We therefore think it our most bounden duty to take immediately some effectual 
method to extirpate this abomination from among us: and for that purpose we add the 
following to the rules of our society, viz :— 

“<¢]. Every member of our society who has slaves in his possession, shall, within 
twelve months afler notice given to him by the assistant, (which notice the assistants 
are required immediately, and without any delay, to give in their respective circuits,) 
legally execute and record an instrument, whereby he emancipates and sets free every 
slave in his possession who is between the ages of forty and forty-five immediately, or 
at farthest when they arrive at the age of forty-fwe. 

“<< And every slave who is between the ages of twenty-five and forty immediately, or 
at farthest at the expiration of five years from the date of the said instrument. 

“<< And every slave who is between the ages of twenty and twenty-five immediately, 
or at farthest when they arrive at the age of thirty. 

“<* And every slave under the age of twenty, as soon as they arrive at the age of 
twenty-five at farthest. 

“* And every infant born in slavery after the above-mentioned rules are complied 
with, immediately on its birth. 

<2. Every assistant shall keep a journal, in which he shall regularly minute down 
the names and ages of all the slaves belonging to all the masters in his respective 
circuit, and also the date of every instrument executed and recorded for the manumis- 
sion of the slaves, with the name of the court, book, and folio, in which the said instru- 
ments respectively shall have been recorded: which journal shall be handed down in 
each circuit to the succeeding assistants. 

¢ 3. In consideration that these rules form a new term of communion, every person 
concerned, who will not comply with them, shail have liberty quietly to withdraw him- 
self from our society within the twelve months succeeding the notice given as afore- 
said: otherwise the assistant shall exclude him in the society. 

“<¢4. No person so voluntarily withdrawn, or so excluded, shall ever partake of the 
supper of the Lord with the Methodists, till he complies with the above requisitions. 

“¢5. No person holding slaves shall, in future, be admitted into society or to the 
Lord’s supper, till he previously complies with these rules concerning slavery. 

“¢N. B. These rules are to affect the members of our society no farther than as they 
are consistent with the laws of the States in which they reside. 

“* And respecting our brethren in Virginia that are concerned, and after due con- 
sideration of their peculiar circumstances, we allow them two years from the notice 
given, to consider the expedience of compliance or non-compliance with these rules. 

“«* Quest. 43. What shall be done with those who buy or sell slaves, or give them away ? 

“* Ans. They are immediately to be expelled: unless they buy them on purpose to 
free them.’—Pp. 42-44.” 


That your Honours will see was done by the conference which commenced its 


meeting in December of 1784. It was the annual conference. There was no Gene- 


ral Conference at the time it was first organized. It was the act of the body of the 
Church represented by all its preachers. 


The next annua! conference met in 1785. 


46 


*1785.—At the annual conferences for 1785, it was concluded that the rule on 
slavery, adopted at the Christmas Conference, would do harm. It was, therefore, 
resolved to suspend its execution for the present, and a note to that effect was added 
to the annual minutes for that year. ‘The conferences, however, still expressed ‘the 
deepest abhorrence’ of ‘the practice,’ and a determination ‘to seek its destruction 
by all wise and prudent means.’—P. 80.” 


This provision never re-appeared, as I am instructed, in any future discipline. 
I turn now to page 20 of the first of the Proofs, which contains extracts on this 
subject from Emory’s History of the Discipline, 


‘“‘ For the provisions on this subject prior to 1784, see pp. 14, 15, 19, 21, 22. For 
the rules adopted at the Christmas Conference, see pp. 43, 44. Not more than six 
months had elapsed after the adoption of these last rules before it was thought neces- 
sary to suspend them. Accordingly, in the annual minutes for 1785 the following 
notice was inserted :— 

«Tt is recommended to all our brethren to suspend the execution of the minute 
on slavery till the deliberations of a future conference; and that an equal space of 
time be allowed all our members for consideration, when the minute shall be put in 
force. 

“««N. B. We do hold in the deepest abhorrence the practice of slavery; and shall 
not cease to seek its destruction by all wise and prudent means.’ 

‘‘ This note does not seem to refer to Question 43, (1784,) as it, with the same 
answer, was retained in the Discipline of 1786. From this till 1796 no mention, it 
would seem, was made of the subject except in the General Rules. (See p. 181.)” 


From the General Rules of the Society I will read an extract :—Discipline of 
1840, p. 80:— 


“There is only one condition previously required of those who desire admission 
into these societies, ‘a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from 
their sins.’ But, wherever this is really fixed in the soul, it will be shown by its 
fruits. It is therefore expected of all who continue therein, that they should con- 
tinue to evidence their desire of salvation, 

‘“« First, by doing no harm, by avoiding evil of every kind, especially that which is 
most generally practised; such as, 

“The taking the name of God in vain. 

“The profaning the day of the Lord, either by doing ordinary work therein, or by 
buying or selling. 

‘« Drunkenness: or drinking spirituous liquors, unless in case of necessity. 

“The buying and selling of men, women, and children, with an intention to en- 
slave them. 

‘‘ Fighting, quarrelling, brawling, brother going to law with brother; returning 
evil for evil; or railing for railing; the using many words in buying or selling. 

“The buying or selling goods that have not paid the duty. 

“The giving or taking things on usury, i. e., unlawful interest. 

“Uncharitable or unprofitable conversation: particularly speaking evil of magis- 
trates or of ministers. 

“Doing to others as we would not they should do unto us.” 


I have. read sufficient to show how it was then considered. On page 21 of the 
First of the Proofs we have the following :— 


“* 1796.—The following section was introduced on the subject :— 

“‘ Quest. What regulations shall be made for the extirpation of the crying evil of 
African slavery ? 

“« Ans. 1. We declare that we are more than ever convinced of the great evil of 
the African slavery which still exists in these United States, and do most earnestly 
recommend to the yearly conferences, quarterly meetings, and to those who have the 
oversight of districts and circuits to be exceedingly cautious what persons they admit 
to official stations, to require such security of those who hold slaves, for the eman- 
cipation of them, immediately or gradually, as the laws of the States respectively, 


4T 


and the circumstances of the case, will admit ; and we do fully authorize all the 
yearly conferences to make whatever regulations they judge proper, in the present 
case, respecting the admission of persons to official stations in our Church.”’ 


We call your Honours’ attention to this because it is one of the strongest expres- 
sions made use of to meet the difficulty. In case of future admissions to official 
station, security was to be required of those who held slaves for the emancipation 
of them, immediately or gradually, as the laws of the States respectively, and the 
circumstances of the case, will admit. 


‘© «2. No slaveholder shall be received into society till the preacher who has the 
oversight of the circuit has spoken to him freely and faithfully on the subject of 
slavery. 

“««Kivery member of the society who sells a slave shall immediately, after full 
proof, be excluded the society. And if any member of our society purchase a slave, 
the ensuing quarterly meeting shall determine on the number of years in which the 
slave so purchased would work out the price of his purchase. And the person so 
purchasing shall, immediately after such determination, execute a legal instrument 
for the manumission of such slave, at the expiration of the term determined by the 
quarterly meeting. And in default of his executing such instrument of manumission, 
or on his refusal to submit his case to the judgment of the quarterly meeting, such 
member shall be excluded the society. Provided also, that in the case of a female 
slave, it shall be inserted in the aforesaid instrument of manumission, that all her 
children who shall be born during the years of her servitude, shall be free at the fol- 
lowing times, namely ; every female child at the age of twenty-one, and every male 
child at the age of twenty-five. Nevertheless, if the member of our society execut- 
ing the said instrument of manumission, judge it proper, he may fix the times of 
manumission of the children of the female slaves before mentioned at an earlier age 
than that which is prescribed above. 

«<«4, The preachers and other members of our society are requested to consider 
the subject of negro slavery with deep attention till the ensuing General Con- 
ference : and that they impart to the General Conference, through the medium of 
the yearly conferences, or otherwise, any important thoughts upon the subject, that 
the conference may have full light, in order to take further steps towards the eradi- 
sane this enormous evil from that part of the Church of God to which they are 
united.’ 

‘¢ 1800.—The following new paragraphs were inserted :— 

‘¢ «2. When any travelling preacher becomes an owner of a slave or slaves, by any 
means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character in our Church, unless he execute, if 
it be practicable, a legal emancipation of such slaves, conformably to the laws of the 
State in which he lives. 

“«’'The annual conferences are directed to draw up addresses for the gradual eman- 
cipation of the slaves, to the legislatures of those States in which no general laws 
have been passed for that purpose. These addresses shall urge, in the most 
respectful, but pointed manner, the necessity of a law for the gradual emancipation 
of the slaves ; proper committees shall be appointed, by the annual conferences, out 
of the most respectable of our friends, for the conducting of the business; and the 
presiding elders, elders, deacons, and travelling preachers, shall procure as many 
proper signatures as possible to the addresses, and give all the assistance in their 
power in every respect to aid the committees, and to further this blessed under- 
pee : Let this be continued from year to year, till the desired end be accom- 
plished. 

‘¢ 1804.—The following alterations were made :— 
es Th oan reads,—‘ What shall be done for the extirpation of the evil of 
slavery 1 

‘In paragraph 1 (1796) instead of ‘ more than ever convinced,’ we have ‘as much 
as ever convinced ;’ and instead of ‘the African slavery which still exists in these 
United States,’ we have ‘slavery.’ 

“Tn paragraph 4, (3 of 1796,) respecting the selling of a slave, before the words 
‘ shall immediately,’ the following clause is inserted :—‘ except at the request of the 
slave, in cases of mercy and humanity, agreeably to the judgment of a committee of 


48 


the male members of the society, appointed by the preacher who has charge of the 
circuit.’ 

‘The following new proviso was inserted in this paragraph :—‘ Provided also, that 
if a member of our society shall buy a slave with a certificate of future emancipa- 
tion, the terms of emancipation shall, notwithstanding, be subject to the decision of 
the quarterly meeting conference.’ All after ‘ nevertheless’ was struck out, and the 
following substituted :—‘ The members of our societies in the States of North Caro- 
lina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee, shall be exempted from the operation 
of the above rules.’ The paragraphs about considering the subject of slavery and 
petitions to legislatures, (namely, No. 4 of 1796, and No. 6 of 1800,) were struck out, 
and the following added :— 

«*5, Let our preachers, from time to time, as occasion serves, admonish and exhort 
all slaves to render due respect and obedience to the commands and interests of 
their respective masters.’ 

«“ 1808.—All that related to slaveholding among private members (see 2 and 3 of 
1796) struck out, and the following substituted :— 

“<¢3. The General Conference authorizes each annual conference to form their own 
regulations relative to buying and selling slaves.’ 

‘«« Paragraph 5 of 1804 was also struck out. 

‘¢1812.—Paragraph 3 of 1808 was altered so as to read,— 

‘««¢ Whereas the laws of some of the States do not admit of emancipating of slaves, 
without a special act of the legislature; the General Conference authorizes each 
annual conference to form their own regulations relative to buying and selling 
slaves.’ 

‘¢1816.—Paragraph 1 (see 1796) was altered so as to read,— 

‘6¢ 1, We declare that we are as much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery ; 
therefore no slaveholder shall be eligible to any official station in our Church here- 
after, where the laws of the State in which he lives will admit of emancipation, and 
permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom.’ 

“‘ 1820.—Paragraph 3, (see 1812,) leaving it to the annual conferences ‘to form 
their own regulations about buying and selling slaves,’ was struck out. 

‘¢1824.—The following paragraphs added :— 

‘«« «3. All our preachers shall prudently enforce upon our members the necessity of 
teaching their slaves to read the word of God; and to allow them time to attend 
upon the public worship of God on our regular days of divine service. 

“«¢4. Our coloured preachers and official members shall have all the privileges 
which are usual to others in the district and quarterly conferences, where the usages 
of the country do not forbid it. And the presiding elder may hold for them a 
separate district conference, where the number of coloured local preachers will 
justify it. 

“¢5. The annual conferences may employ coloured preachers to travel and 
preach where their services are judged necessary ; provided that no one shall be so 


employed without having been recommended according to the Form of Discipzine,’ 
—Pp. 274-279.” 


We now come down, if your Honours please, to the journal of the General Con- 
ference of 1840, page 56 of the first of the Proofs, and we approach to the very acts 
of dissension. We read these parts of the evidence with a view to show the actual 
state of the difficulty in which the society found itself in 1844, and whether there 
was a permanent or serious difficulty, or not. 


“May 2.—O. Scott of the New-England Conference, presented a petition from 
persons residing in New-York on the subject of slavery. On the presenting of this 
petition, J. Early moved the appomtment of a standing Committee on Slavery, to 
whom all papers, petitions, and memorials, upon that subject, shall be referred. 
Adopted. Ordered that the committee consist of twenty-eight members, one from 
each annual conference, and appointed by the respective delegations. 

“ Fripay, May 8.—E. Dorsey presented the memorial of the stewards and others 
of Westmoreland circuit, Baltimore Conference, complaining of the action of the 
Baltimore Annual Conference, in refusing to elect to ordination local preachers, on 
the single ground of their being slaveholders. 


49 


‘“‘ The memorial was read, and ineffectual efforts made to procure other reference. 
After discussion it was, on motion, referred to a select committee of nine to consider 
and report thereon.”’ 


Your Honours will permit me to explain that the Westmoreland Circuit was in 
Virginia, but connected with the Baltimore Conference. 


“« Wepnespay, May 13.—On motion of J. A. Collins, the report of the Committee 
on the Judiciary, of 1836, in relation to a memorial from Westmoreland and Lancas- 
ter circuits, Baltimore Conference, was referred to the committee raised on the 
memorial from Westmoreland circuit to this Conference. 

“'Trurspay, May 21.—N. Bangs, chairman of the Committee on Slavery, present- 
ed a report, which was read. 

“©. Scott stated that the minority of the committee had a report which they 
wished to present. Moved that the report of the majority be laid on the table for 
the present. Carried. 

“Tt was then moved that the report of the minority be read. After discussion, it 
was moved to lay this on the table. Carried. 

“On motion, the report of the Committee on Slavery was again taken up. The 
first resolution accompanying the report was read. 

“ Moved to adjourn. Lost. 

“QO. Scott, rismg to speak, and intimating that he would probably extend his re- 
marks beyond fifteen minutes, it was, on motion, resolved to suspend the rule re- 
stricting a speaker to fifteen minutes, so as to permit brother Scott to proceed at his 
own discretion. 

‘* Moved to adjourn. Lost. 

“ After brother Scott had proceeded some time with his remarks, he gave way for 
a motion to adjourn, which prevailed ; and Conference adjourned, to meet to-morrow 
morning, at half-past eight o’clock.’’ 


Tue Court,—Where was that Conference held ? 


Mr. Lorp,—In the city of Baltimore. It commenced on the Ist of May, 1840. 
Mr. Reverpvy Jonnson,—The Conference of 1844 was held in this city. 
Mr. Lorp continued to read as follows :— 


“ Fripay Mornine, May 22.—Conference proceeded to the consideration of the 
unfinished business of yesterday, it beg the first resolution accompanying the report 
of the Committee on Slavery. The discussion was renewed. 

“On motion, Conference resolved, that when it adjourned, it adjourn to meet this 
afternoon, at three o’clock. 

“During the debate, brother Crowther being on the floor, and having spoken fifteen 
minutes, 2 motion was made that he have liberty to proceed with, and conclude his 
remarks. For this, a substitute was moved in these words, That the rule restricting 
speaking to fifteen minutes be suspended during the discussion of the subject before 
the Conference. Lost. 

“The question recurring upon the original motion, it was withdrawn by the 
mover, but was immediately renewed and adopted.” 


I pass on to page 67 of the first of the Proofs for the continuation of the proceed- 
ings of this Conference :— 


“« May 28.—W. Capers, chairman of the Committee on the Address from the 
Wesleyan Methodist Connexion, made a report, accompanied with letters to the 
British and Canada Conferences, which were read. Moved to adopt the report and 
letters.” (See appendix, Documents B. and C.) . 

“OQ, Scott called for a division on adopting the letter to the British Conference. 
H. Slicer moved to recommit the report. Lost. J.T. Mitchell offered the following 
resolution, which was adopted :—‘ Resolved, That the committee revise the letter 
to the British Conference, so as to refer to our literary institutions, and to the inter- 
change of representatives.’ 

“The question was then taken on adopting the report of the committee. 


50 


“¢1, On the letter to the British Wesleyan Conference, a division was called for ; 
and on motion, that part which does not refer to slavery was adopted. “ ‘That part 
relating to slavery was also adopted ; one hundred and fourteen voting in the affirma- 
tive, and eighteen in the negative.” 


I now propose to read extracts from some documents which in these proceedings 
have been referred to; first, that which begins on page 58 of the first of the Proofs, 
and next, that which begins on page 64, which express the sentiments of the Confer- 
ence at that period. 


Mr. Jounson, Jun., read the following extract :— 


‘“ Extract from Address of the Bishops to the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. ; 

‘In a body so numerous as the Methodist connexion, embracing twenty-eight an- 
nual conferences, extended over these United States and Territories, and connected 
with different civil and domestic institutions, it is hardly expected that all should see 
‘eye to eye’ relative to the meaning and administration of the Discipline of the 
Church, or the fitness and expediency of measures which may be adopted in con- 
formity to such a state of things. 

“Tt has been the constant aim and united endeavour of your general superintend- 
ents to preserve uniformity and harmony in these respects ; and, as far as practi- 
cable, prevent conflicting action in all the official bodies in the Church. But 
although we record, with unfeigned gratitude to the God of all grace and consolation, 
the general peace, and harmony, and prosperity of the body since your last session, it 
becomes our painful duty to lay before you some exceptions to this happy and 
prosperous condition. 

“« At the last session of the General Conference the subject of slavery and its 
abolition was extensively discussed, and vigorous exertions made to effect new 
legislation upon it. But after a careful examination of the whole ground, aided by 
the light of past experience, it was the solemn conviction of the Conference that the 
interests of religion would not be advanced by any additional enactments in regard 
to it. 

‘Jn your Pastoral Address to the ministers and people at your last session, with 
creat unanimity, and, as we believe, in the true spirit of the ministers of the peace- 
rul Gospel of Christ, you solemnly advised the whole body to abstain from all abolition 
movements, and from agitating the exciting subject in the Church. ‘This advice was 
im perfect agreement with the mdividual as well as associated views of your superin- 
tendents. But, had we differed from you in opinion, in consideration of the age, 
wisdom, experience, and official authority of the General Conference, we should 
have felt ourselves under a solemn obligation to be governed by your counsel. We 
have endeavoured, both in our official administration, and in our private intercourse 
with the preachers and members, to inculcate the sound policy and Christian spirit 
of your Pastoral Address. And it affords us great pleasure to be able to assure you, 
that our efforts i this respect have been very generally approved, and your advice 
cordially received and practically observed in a very large majority of the annual con- 
ferences, as will more fully appear to you on the careful examination of the journals 
of those bodies for the last four years. But we regret that we are compelled to say, 
that in some of the Northern and Eastern conferences, in contravention of your 
Christian and pastoral counsel, and of your best efforts to carry it into effect, the 
subject has been agitated in such forms, and in such a spirit, as to disturb the peace 
of the Church. ‘This unhappy agitation has not been confined to the annual confer- 
ences, but has been introduced into quarterly conferences, and made the absorbing 
business of self-created bodies in the bosom of our beloved Zion. The professed 
object of all these operations is to free the Methodist Episcopal Church from the 
‘ great moral evil of slavery,’ and to secure to the enslaved the rights and privileges 
of free citizens of these United States. How far the measures adopted, and the 
manner of applying those measures, are calculated to accomplish such an issue, even 
if it could be effected by any action of ecclesiastical bodies, your united wisdom will 
enable you to judge. 

‘“« We cannot, however, but regard it as of unhappy tendency that cither individual 
members or official bodies in the Church, should employ terms and pass resolutions 


Ak 


51 


of censure and condemnation on their brethren, and on public officers and official 
bodies, over whose actions they have no legitimate jurisdiction. It requires no very 
extensive knowledge of human nature to be convinced that if we would convert our 
fellow-men from the error of their ways, we must address them, not in terms of 
crimination and reproach, but in the milder language of respect, persuasion and 
kindness. 

“Tt is justly due to a number of the annual conferences in which a majority, or a 
very respectable minority, of the members are professedly abolitionists, to say that 
they occupy a very different ground, and pursue a very different course from those 
of their brethren who have adopted ultra principles and measures in this unfortunate, 
and, we think, unprofitable controversy. ‘The result of action had in such confer- 
ences on the resolution of the New-Eneland Conference, recommending a very 
important change in our general rule on slavery, is satisfactory proof of this fact, and 
affords us strong and increasing contidence that the unity and peace of the Church 
are not to be materially affected by this exciting subject. Many of the preachers 
who were favourably disposed to the cause of abolition, when they saw the extent 
to which it was designed to carry these measures, and the inevitable consequence of 
their prosecution, came to a pause, reflected, and declined their co-operation. They 
clearly perceived that the success of the measures would result in the division of the 
Church ; and for such an event they were not prepared. They have no disposition 
to criminate their brethren in the South, who are unavoidably connected with the 
institution of slavery, or to separate from them on that account. It is believed that 
men of ardent temperament, whose zeal may have been somewhat in advance of 
their knowledge and discretion, have made such advances in the abolition enterprise 
as to produce a reaction. A few preachers and members, disappointed. in their ex- ” 
pectations, and despairing of the success of their cause in the Methodist Church, 
have withdrawn from our fellowship, and connected themselves with associations 
more congenial with their views and feelings ; and others, in similar circumstances, 
may probably follow their example. But we rejoice in believing that these seces- 
sions will be very limited, and that the great body of Methodists in these States will 
continue as they have been—one and inseparable. ‘The uniformity and stability of 
our course should be such as to let all candid and thinking men see, that the cause 
of secessions from us is not a change of our doctrine or moral discipline—no imposi- 
tion of new terms of communion—no violation of covenant engagements on the part 
of the Church. It is a matter worthy of particular notice, that those who have de- 
parted from us do not pretend that any material change in our system, with respect 
cither to doctrine, discipline, or government, has taken place since they voluntarily 
united themselves with us. And it is ardently to be desired that no such innovation 
may be effected, as to furnish any just ground for such a pretension. 

“The experience of more than half a century, since the organization of our eccle- 
siastical body, will afford us many important lights and landmarks, pomting out what 
is the safest and most prudent policy to be pursued in our onward course as regards 
African slavery in these States, and especially in our own religious community. 
This very interesting period of our history is distinguished by several characteristic 
features having a special claim to our consideration at the present time, particularly 
in view of the unusual excitement which now prevails on the subject, not only in the 
different Christian Churches, but also in the civil body. And, first: our general rule 
on slavery, which forms a part of the Constitution of the Church, has stood from the 
beginning unchanged, as testamentary of our sentiments on the principle of slavery 
and the slave trade. And in this we differ in no respect from the sentiments of our 
venerable founder, or from those of the wisest and most distinguished statesmen and 
civilians of our own and other enlightened and Christian countries. Secondly: m all 
the enactments of the Church relating to slavery, a due and respectful regard has 
been had to the laws of the States, never requiring emancipation in contravention of 
the civil authority, or where the laws of the States would not allow the liberated 
slave to enjoy his freedom. ‘Thirdly: the simply holding or owning slaves, without 
regard to circumstances, has at no period of the existence of the Church subjected 
the master to excommunication. Fourthly: rules have been made from time to 
time, regulating the sale, and purchase, and holding of slaves, with reference to the 
different laws of the States where slavery is tolerated ; which, upon the experience 
of the great difficulties of admmistering them, and the unhappy consequences both to 
masters and servants, have been as often changed or repealed. ‘These important 


52 


facts, which form prominent features of our past history as a Church, may very pro- 
perly lead us to inquire for that course of action in future, which may be best calcu- 
lated to preserve the peace and unity of the whole body, promote the greatest hap- 
piness of the slave population, and advance generally, in the slave-holding community 
of our country, the humane and hallowing influence of our holy religion. We cannot 
withhold from you, at this eventful period, the solemn conviction of our minds, that 
no new ecclesiastical legislation on the subject of slavery, at this time, will have a 
tendency to accomplish these most desirable objects. And we are fully persuaded 
that, as a body of Christian ministers, we shall accomplish the greatest good by direct- 
ing our individual and united efforts, in the spirit of the first teachers of Christianity, 
to bring both master and servant under the sanctifying influence of the principles of 
that Gospel which teaches the duties of every relation, and enforces the faithful dis- 
charge of them by the strongest conceivable motives. Do we aim at the amelioration 
of the condition of the slave? How can we so effectually accomplish this, in our 
calling as ministers of the Gospel of Christ, as by employing our whole influence to 
bring both him and his master to a saving knowledge of the grace of God, and to a 
practical observance of those relative duties so clearly prescribed in the writings of 
the inspired apostles? Permit us to add, that, although we enter not into the poli- 
tical contentions of the day, neither interfere with civil legislation, nor with the 
administration of the laws, we cannot but feel a deep interest in whatever affects the 
peace, prosperity, and happiness of our beloved country. The union of these States, 
the perpetuity of the bonds of our national confederation, the reciprocal confidence 
of the different members of the great civil compact,—in a word, the well-being of the 
community of which we are members, should never cease to lie near our hearts, and 
for which we should offer up our sincere and most ardent prayers to the Almighty 
Ruler of the universe. But can we, as ministers of the Gospel, and servants of a 
Master ‘whose kingdom is not of this‘world,’ promote these important objects in 
any way so truly and permanently as by pursuing the course just pointed out? Can 
we, at this eventful crisis, render a better service to our country, than by laying aside 
all interference with relations authorized and established by the civil laws, and ap- 
plying ourselves wholly and faithfully to what specially appertains to our ‘high and 
holy calling ;’ to teach and enforce the moral obligations of the Gospel, in application 
to all the duties growing out of the different relations in society? By a diligent 
devotion to this evangelical employment, with an humble and steadfast reliance upon 
the aid of Divine influence,.the number of ‘believing masters’ and servants may be 
constantly increased, the kindest sentiments and affections cultivated, domestic bur- 
dens lightened, mutual confidence cherished, and the peace and happiness of society 
be promoted. While, on the other hand, if past history affords us any correct rules 
of judgment, there is much cause to fear that the influence of our sacred office, if 
employed in interference with the relation itself, and consequently with the civil 
institutions of the country, will rather tend to prevent than to accomplish these de- 
sirable ends.” 


Mr. Lorp,—If your Honours please, the extract from the address of the bishops, 
which has been read, is neither dated nor signed ; but for the date and signatures, 
I refer you to the printed Minutes, or Journal of the General Conference, of 1840, 
page 151, and you will find that it was signed by R. R. Roberts, Joshua Soule, E 
Hedding, James O. Andrew, B. Waugh, and Thomas A. Morris, being all the bishops 
of the Church at that time. It bears date, Baltimore, May 4, 1840. 

The hour of three o’clock, the usual hour of adjournment, having arrived, the Court 
was adjourned until to-morrow, at ten o’clock, A. M. 


SECOND DAY.—Tvespay, May 20, 1851. 


Mr. Lorp,—Before the adjournment yesterday, if your Honours please, we read 
an extract from the Address of the Bishops to the General Conference of the Me- 
thodist Episcopal Church, held in Baltimore in 1840. I now propose to read an 
extract from the Address of the British Conference to the bishops and members of 
the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of 
America, and an extract from an Address of the General Conference to the British 


53 


Jonference. I refer your Honours to page 67 of the first of the Proofs, for the action 
of the General Conference of 1840, upon these documents. 


“ From Address of the British Conference. 

“«<« But while we freely indulge in sentiments such as these, we cannot forget that on 
one subject especially—the subject of American slavery—you, our beloved brethren, 
are placed in circumstances of painful trial and perplexity. We enter, with brother- 
ly sympathy, into the peculiar situation which you are now called to occupy. But 
on this question, we beg to refer you to what occurs in our Address to you from the 
conference of 1836, a proper copy of which will be handed to you by our representa- 
tive; as also to the contents of our preceding letter of 1835. 'To the principles 
which we have affectionately but honestly declared in these two documents we still 
adhere, with a full conviction of their Christian truth and justice. 

««« The time which has elapsed, and the events which have taken place, since the 
preparation of the above-mentioned papers, serve only to confirm us yet more in our 
views of the moral evil of slavery. Far be it from us to advocate violent and ill-con- 
sidered measures. We are, however, strongly and unequivocally of opinion that it 
is, at this time, the paramount Christian duty of the ministers of our most merciful 
Lord in your country to maintain the principle of opposition to slavery with earnest 
zeal and unflinching firmness. May we not also be allowed, with the heart-felt soli- 
citude of fraternal love, to entreat that you will not omit or qualify the noble testi- 
mony which we have extracted, in a note to our Address, from your Book of Disci- 
pline, but that you will continue to insert it there in its primitive and unimpaired 
integrity 

“ From Address of the General Conference. 


«“«We have considered, with affectionate respect and confidence, your brotherly 
suggestions concerning slavery, and most cheerfully return an unreserved answer to 
them. And we do so the rather, brethren, because of the numerous prejudicial state- 
ments which have been put forth in certain quarters to the wounding of the Church. 
We assure you then, brethren, that we have adopted no new principle or rule of dis- 
cipline respecting slavery since the time of our apostolic Asbury ; neither do we mean 
to adopt any. In our general rules, (called the ‘General Rules of the United So- 
cieties,’ and which are of constitutional authority in our Church,) ‘the buying and 
selling of men, women, and children, with an intention to enslave them,’ is expressly 
prohibited; and in the same words, substantially, which have been used for the rule 
since 1792. And the extract of part u, section 10, of our Book of Discipline, which 
you quote with approbation, and denominate ‘a noble testimony,’ is still of force to 
the same extent that it has been for many years; nor do we entertain any purpose to 
omit or qualify this section, or any part thereof. For while we should regard it a 
sore evil to divert Methodism from her proper work of ‘ spreading Scripture holiness 
over these lands,’ to questions of temporal import, involving the rights of Cawsar, yet 
are we not the less minded on that account to promote and set forward all humane 
and generous actions, or to prevent, to the utmost of our power, such as are evil and 
unchristian. It is our first desire, after piety toward God, to be ‘merciful after our 
power; as we have opportunity, doing good of every possible sort, and as far as pos- 
sible, to all men’—‘ to their bodies,’ but especially, and above all, ‘to their souls.’ 

‘“«¢ Of these United States, (to the government and laws of which, ‘ according to 
the division of power made to them by the constitution of the Union, and the consti- 
tutions of the several States,’ we owe, and delight to render, a sincere and patriotic 
loyalty,) there are several which do not allow of slavery. There are others in which 
it is allowed, and there are slaves; but the tendency of the laws, and the minds of the 
majority of the people, are in favour of emancipation. But there are others in which 
slavery exists so universally, and is so closely interwoven with their civil institutions, 
that both do the laws disallow of emancipation, and the great body of the people (the 
source of laws with us) hold it to be treasonable to set forth anything, by word or 
deed, tending that way. Each one of all these States is independent of the rest, and 
sovereign, with respect to its internal government, (as much so as if there existed 
no confederation among them for ends of common interest,) and therefore it is impos- 
sible to frame a rule on slavery proper for our people in all the States alike. But 
our Church is extended through all the States, and as it would be wrong and un- 
scriptural to enact a rule of discipline in opposition to the constitution and laws of 


54 


the State on this subject, so also would it not be equitable or Scriptural to confound 
the positions of our ministers and people (so different as they are in different States) 
with respect to the moral question which slavery involves. 

““¢Under the administration of the venerated Dr. Coke, this plain distinction was 
once overlooked, and it was attempted to urge emancipation in all the States; but 
the attempt proved almost ruinous, and was soon abandoned by the doctor himself. 
While, therefore, the Church has encouraged emancipation in those States where the 
laws permit it and allowed the freed-man to enjoy freedom, we have refrained, for 
conscience’ sake, from all intermeddling with the subject in those other States where 
the laws make it criminal. And such a course we think agreeable to the Scriptures, 
and indicated by St. Paul’s inspired instruction to servants in his First Epistle to the 
Corinthians, chap. vii, ver. 20,21. For if servants were not to care for their seryi- 
tude when they might not be free, though if they might be free they should use it 
rather ; so, neither should masters be condemned for not setting them free when they 
might not do so, though if they might they should do so rather. The question of the 
evil of slavery, abstractedly considered, you will readily perceive, brethren, is a very 
different matter from a principle or rule of Church discipline to be executed contrary 
to, and in defiance of, the law ofthe land. Methodism has always been (except per- 
haps in the single stance above) eminently loyal and promotive of good order; anid 
so we desire it may ever continue to be, both in Europe and America. With this 
sentiment we conclude the subject, adding only the corroborating language of your 
noble Missionary Society, by the revered and lamented Watson, in their instructions 
to missionaries, published in the Report of 1833, as follows :— 

«¢¢« As in the colonies in which you are called to labour a great proportion of the 
inhabitants are in a state of slavery, the committee most strongly call to your re- 
membrance what was so fully stated to you when you were accepted as a missionary 
to the West Indies, that your only business is to promote the moral and religious im- 
provement of the slaves to whom you may have access, without, in the least degree, 
in public or private, interfering with their civil condition.” *”’ 


I will now continue to read from the proceedings of the General Conference of 
1840—page 68, of the first of the Proofs—the report of the Committee on the West- 
moreland Petition, which was a case in which they had rejected a local preacher from 
ordination on the ground that he was a slave-holder. 


“ Wepnespbay, June 3.—H B. Bascom, chairman of the Committee on the Peti- 
tion from Westmoreland, Va., presented a report, which was read and adopted. 


“ Report onthe Westmoreland Petition. 


« «The committee, to whom was referred the memorial and appeal of some fifteen 
official members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Westmoreland circuit, 
Baltimore Conference, on the subject of alleged withholdment of right from a por- 
tion of the local ministry withm the limits of that conference, and to whom was 
likewise referred the report of the judiciary committee upon a similar remonstrance 
from the same division of the Baltimore Conference, signed by about thirty official 
members of the Church, and addressed to the General Conference in 1836, after 
giving to the subject the attention its obvious importance demands, beg leave to 
report the following as the result of their deliberations :— : 

«<The particular portion, or rather general section of country in which these remon- 
strances have their origin, although belonging to the Baltimore Conference, is found 
within the limits of the state of Virginia; and the memorialists represent in strong 
but respectful terms, that local preachers within the jurisdiction of the Baltimore 
Conference, but residing in the commonwealth of Virginia, have, in considerable 
numbers, and for a succession of years, been rejected as applicants for deacons’ and 
elders’ orders in the ministry, solely on the ground of their being slaveholders or the 
owners of slaves. In the memorials referred to, it is distinctly stated, that election 
and ordination have been withheld from the applicants in question, on no other 
ground or pretence, than that of their being the owners of slave property ; and it is 
further argued, that the Baltimore Conference avows this to be the only reason of 
the course they pursue, and which is complained of by the petitioners. The appel- 
lants allege further, that the laws of Virginia relating to slavery, forbid emanci- 
pation, except under restrictions, and subject to contingencies, amounting, to all 


59 


intents and purposes, to a prohibition ; and that the Discipline of the Church having 
provided for the ordination of ministers thus circumstanced, the course pursued by 
the Baltimore Conference operates as an abridgment of right, and, therefore, fur- 
nishes just ground of complaint. The memorialists regard themselves as clearly 
entitled to the protection of the well-known provisional exception to the general 
rule on this subject, found in the Discipline; and assume with confidence, and 
argue with firmness and ability, that no other objection being found to the character 
of candidates for ordination, it is a departure from the plain intentment of the law 
in the case, and a violation of not less express compact than of social justice, to 
withhold ordination for reasons which the provisions of the law plainly declare are 
not to be considered as a forfeiture of right. It is set forth in the argument of the 
appellants, that attaching themselves to the Church as citizens of Virginia, where. 
in the obvious sense of the Discipline, emancipation is impracticable, the holding of 
slaves, or failure to emancipate them, cannot plead in bar to the right of ordination, 
as is the case in States where emancipation, as defined and qualified by the rule in 
the case, is found to be practicable. In the latter case, the question is within the 
jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as the holding or not holding of property of 
this kind depends, not upon the constitution and regulation of civil property, but 
upon the will and purpose of individuals. Under such circumstances the conduct in 
question is voluntary, and in every final sense the result of choice. In the former, 
however, where emancipation is resisted by the prohibition of law, it may be other- 
wise ; and in many instances is known to be, resulting entirely from the involuntary 
relations and circumstances of individuals connected with the very structures of 
civil polity, and the force and array of public opinion and popular interest. The 
memorialists advert to the fact, that we have in the Discipline two distinct classes 
of legislative provisions in relation to slayery—the one applying to owners of slaves 
where emancipation is practicable, consistently with the mterests of master and 
slaves ; and the other where it is impracticable without endangering such safety, and 
these interests on the part of both. With the former, known as the general rule on 
this subject, the petitioners do not interfere in any way, and are content simply to 
place themselves under the protection of the latter, as contracting parties with the 
Church ; and the ground of complaint is, that the Church has failed to redeem the 
pledge of its own laws, by refusing or failing to promote to office ministers, in 
whose case no disability attaches on the ground of slavery, because the dis- 
ability attaching in other cases is here removed by special provision of law, 
and so far leaves the right to ordination clear and undoubted, and hence the 
complaint against the Baltimore Conference. In further prosecution of the duty 
assigned them, your committee have carefully examined the law, and inquired into 
the system of slavery as it exists in Virginia, and find the representation of the 
memorialists essentially correct. ‘The conditions with which emancipation is bur- 
dened in that commonwealth, preclude the practicability of giving freedom to slaves 
as contemplated in the Discipline, except in extremely rare Instances—say one in a 
thousand, and possibly not more than one in tive thousand. ‘The exception in the 
Discipline is, therefore, strictly applicable to all the ministers and members of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, holding slaves in Virginia, and they appear clearly 
entitled to the benefit of the rule made and provided in such cases. 

“«¢ As emancipation under such circumstances is not a requirement of Discipline, it 
cannot be made a condition of eligibility to office. An appeal to the policy and 
practice of the Church for fifty years past, will show incontestably, that, what- 
ever may have been the convictions of the Church with regard to this great evil— 
the nature and tendency of the system of slavery—it has never insisted upon emanci- 
pation in contravention of civil authority ; and it, therefore, appears to be a well- 
settled and long-established principle in the policy of the Church, that no ecclesias- 
tical disabilities are intended to ensue, either to the ministers or members of the 
Church in those States where the civil authority forbids emancipation. ‘The general 
rule, therefore, distinctly and invariably requirmg emancipation as the ground of 
right and the condition of claim to ordination where the laws of the several States 
admit of emancipation and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, and which, 
in the judgment of your committee, should always be carried into effect with 
unyielding firmness, does not apply to your memorialists, and cannot, by any fair 
construction of law, affect their rights. 

“+ On the other hand, your committee have given the most careful consideration to 


56 


the position of the Baltimore Conference complained of by the appellants. The 
journals of the several sessions of the Baltimore Conference, for a series of years, 
have been carefully examined, and found to be silent on the subject of the rejections 
m question, except the single statement, that A, B, and C, from time to time, 
applied for admission or orders, and were rejected. We find no rule or reason of 
action, no evidence of preconcertion, no grounds or reasons of rejection, stated in 
any form, directly or indirectly. Nothing of this kind is avowed in, or found upon 
the face of the journals of that body. The charge of particular motives, it occurs 
to your committee, cannot be sustained in the instance of a deliberative body, say 
the Baltimore Conference, unless it appears in evidence that the motives have been 
avowed by a majority of the conference ; and it is not in proof that the conference 
has ever had an action to this effect, whatever may have been the declaration of 
individuals sustainmg the charge of the appellants. The fact charged, without 
reference to motives, that there had been a long list of rejections, both as regards 
admission into the travelling connexion and ordination, until the exception seems to 
be made a general rule, is undoubtedly true, and it is not denied by the defendants. 
The evidence, however, in relation to specific reasons and motives, is defective, and 
does not appear to sustain the charge of a contravention of right by any direct ac- 
credited action of the Baltimore Conference had in the premises. 

““<«'That this view of the subject presents a serious difficulty, is felt by your com- 
mittee, and must be so by all. ‘The rule applicable in this case allows an annual 
conference to elect under the circumstances; but does not, and, from the very 
nature and ubiquity of the case, cannot require it. Among the unquestioned con- 
stitutional rights of our annual conferences, is that of acting freely, without any 
compulsory direction, in the exercise of individual franchise. Election here is 
plainly an assertion of personal right on the part of the different members composing 
the body, with regard to which, the claim to question or challenge motives does not 
belong even to the General Conference, unless the result has turned upon avowed 
considerations unknown to the law and rule in the case. The journal of the con- 
ference is the only part of its history of which this body has cognizance ; and to 
extend such cognizance to the reasons and motives of individual members of con- 
ferences not declared to be the ground of action by a majority, would be to establish 
a rule at once subversive of the rights and independence of annual conferences. In 
the very nature of the case an annual conference must possess the right of free and 
uncontrolled determination, not only in the choice of its members, but in all its 
elections, and, keeping within the limits and restrictions of its charter as found in the 
Discipline, can only be controlled in the exercise of such rights by moral and relative 
e~siderations connected with the intelligence and interests of the body. 

«The memorialists prayed the last General Conference, and they again ask this, 
to interfere authoritatively, by change or construction of rule, so as to afford re- 
hef; and in failure to do so, in the memorial of 1836, they ask to be set off to 
the Virginia Conference as the only remaining remedy. In their present petition 
they are silent on the subject of a transfer to Virginia. Under all the circum- 
stances of the case, and taking mto the account the probabilities of future action 
in the premises, your committee cannot but regard this as the only conclusive 
remedy. But how far this may be considered as relatively practicable, or whether 
advisable, in view of all the interests involved, the committee have no means of 
determining, and therefore leave it to the judgment of those who have. That the 
petitioners, in accordance with the provisions of the Discipline, whether said pro- 
visions be right or wrong, are entitled to remedy, your committee cannot for a 
moment doubt, inasmuch as they are labouring, and have been for years, under 
practical disabilities actually provided against by the Discipline of the Church. The 
alleged grievance is by the petitioners themselves regarded as one of administration, 
not of law. No change of legislation is asked for, unless this body prefer it; and 
it does not appear to your committee to be called for by any view of the subject 
they have been able to take. 

““¢ Your committee are unwilling to close this brief view of the subject, without 
anxlously suggesting that, as it is one of the utmost importance and intense delicacy 
in its application and bearings throughout our entire country, involving in greater or 
less degree the hopes and fears, the anxieties and mterests of millions, it must be 
expected that great variety of opinions and diversity of conviction and feeling will be 
found to exist in relation to it, and most urgently call for the exercise of mutual for- 


57 


bearance and reciprocal good-will on the part of all concerned. May not the principles 
and causes giving birth and perpetuity to great moral and political systems or institu- 
tions be regarded as evil, even essentially evil, in every primary aspect of the subject, 
without the implication of moral obliquity on the part of those involuntarily connected 
with such systems and institutions, and providentially involved in their operation and 
consequences? May not a system of this kind be jealously regarded as in itself more 
or less inconsistent with natural right and moral rectitude, without the imputation of 
guilt and derelict motive, in the mstance of those who, without any choice or pur- 
pose of their own, are necessarily subjected to its influence and sway ? 

««¢ Can it be considered as just or reasonable to hold individuals responsible for the 
destiny of circumstances over which they have no control? ‘Thus conditioned in the 
organic arrangements and distributions of society, is there any necessary connexion 
between the moral character of the dividual and that of the system? In this way 
the modifying influence of unavoidable agencies or circumstances in the formation 
of character is a well-known principle, and one of universal recognition in law, morals, 
and religion, and upon which all administration of law, not unjust and oppressive, 
must proceed. And your committee know no reason why the rule is inapplicable, or 
should not obtain, in relation to the subject of this report. In conclusion, your com- 
mittee would express the deliberate opinion that, while the general rule on the subject 
of slavery, relating to those States only whose laws admit of emancipation and permit 
the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, should be firmly and constantly enforced, the excep- 
tion to the general rule, applying to those States where emancipation, as defined 
above, is not practicable, should be recognised and protected with equal firmness 
and impartiality. The committee respectfully suggest to the Conference the pro- 
piety of adopting the following resolution :— 

“¢ Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences in General Confer- 
ence assembled, ‘That under the provisional exception of the general rule of the Church 
on the subject of slavery, the simple holding of slaves, or mere ownership of slave 
property, in States or Territories where the laws do not admit of emancipation and 
permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal barrier to the elec- 
tion or ordination of ministers to the various grades of office known in the ministry 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and cannot therefore be considered as operating 
any forfeiture of right in view of such election and ordination.’ ”’ 


I beg your Honours’ attention to the phrase, ‘“‘ constitutes no legal barrier to the 
election or ordination of ministers to the various grades of office known in the min- 
istry of the Methodist Episcopal Church.” 

I now proceed to quote from the acts of the General Conference of 1844, upon 
the case of Mr. Harding, which arose in the Baltimore Conference, which, I believe, 
has been called the ‘ Breakwater Conference.” This General Conference commenced 
its sittings in the city of New-York, on Wednesday, May 1, 1844, on which day 
Bishops Soule, Hedding, Andrew, Waugh, and Morris, were present. From the 
Minutes it appears that this Conference was flooded with petitions upon the subject 
of slavery; and on the 4th of May this precise and particular case came up.—(P. 75, 


Jirst of the Proofs.) 


“ Sarurpay, May 4, 1844.—J. A. Gere presented the appeal of Francis A. Har- 
ding, of the Baltimore Conference ; which, on motion, the Conference made the spe- 
cial order for Tuesday next. 

“'Turspay, May 7.—On motion, the rule of business was suspended to take up 
the special order of the day, namely: The appeal of Francis A. Harding, of the 
Baltimore Conference. 

‘J. Early announced that the appellant was present, and had spoken to W. A. 
Smith of the Virginia Conference, to act as his representative, in presenting and 
prosecuting the appeal. 

“The journal of the Baltimore Conference, unfolding its action in regard to the 
appellant, and from which he appeals, was read by the Secretary. From this it ap- 
pears that F. A. Harding had been suspended from his ministerial standing for 
refusing to manumit certain slaves which came into his possession by his marriage, 
On motion of 8. Luckey and J. B. Finley, the appeal was admitted and entertained. 


58 


“ W. A. Smith, in behalf of the appellant, made a statement, and argued the case 
until near the hour of adjournment. When he had concluded, J. A. Collins moved 
that the case be postponed, and made the special order for to-morrow, to be taken 
up immediately after the reading of the journal. Adopted. 

“ Wepnespay, May 8.—On motion, the journal of yesterday was so amended as 
to read, ‘the order of business according to the rule was suspended, to take up the 
order of the day, namely: the appeal of F. A. Harding.’ The journal as amended 
was approved and confirmed. 

“The consideration of the appeal case before the Conference yesterday was 
resumed. 

«J. A. Collins, in behalf of the Baltimore Conference in this case, addressed the 
Conference in reply to W. A. Smith, and in defence of the action of the Baltimore 
Conference, until eleven o’clock. H. Slicer, A. Griffith, and T. B. Sargent, were 
also heard for the Baltimore Conference. 

“When the delegates of the Baltimore Conference had spoken, the place was 
given to the representative of the appellant to rejoin. At this point, J. Harly moved 
that the further consideration of this case be postponed until to-morrow morning at 
ten o’clock, and that it be made the special order for that time. J. A. Collins moved 
to amend, by inserting, instead of ten o’clock, ‘immediately after the reading of the 
journal.’, This was lost. N. Rounds moved to amend by inserting ‘three o’clock 
to-morrow afternoon.’ J. A. Collins moved further to amend by inserting ‘ this after 
noon.’ As a substitute, W. Capers moved, that the Conference attend to this busi- 
ness to-morrow morning, immediately after reading the journal. W.M’Mahan moved, 
that when the Conference adjourn, it adjourn to meet the American Bible Society, 
to-morrow morning at ten o’clock. This motion was laid on the table. Finally, at 
fifteen minutes before one o’clock, E. R. Ames moved that Conference do now adjourn ; 
which motion was adopted, and Conference separated after prayer by brother Spaulding. 

* Fripay, May 10.—The appeal of F. A. Harding was resumed. By consent of 
W. A. Smith, the representative of the appellant, J. A. Collins, who acted in behalf 
of the Baltimore Conference, was allowed to make a further response for the Balti- 
more Conference to the statement and defence of W. A. Smith. He spoke until 
within five minutes of eleven o’clock. ° 

“When W. A. Smith was about to reply, Conference, on motion of T. Crowder, 
resolved to prolong the session until he should have concluded his rejoinder. 

“W. A. Smith, on behalf of the appellant, was then heard in reply to the repre- 
sentative of the Baltimore Conference. He spoke until after one o’clock ; and the 
pleadings on both sides were closed. 

 Sarurpay, May 11.—On motion of E, R. Ames, the rules of Conference were 
suspended for the purpose of taking up the appeal of F. A. Harding. W. A. Smith 
came forward when the appeal was resumed, and asked leave to make further state- 
ments im regard to the appellant. A motion to grant leave was offered and carried. 
When the Conference had heard Mr. Smith, J. Early offered the following resolu- 
tion, namely :— 

“¢ Resolved, That the act of the Baltimore Annual Conference, by which F. A. 
Harding was suspended from his ministerial functions, be, and the same is, hereby 
reversed.’ 

“The yeas and nays were called for, and ordered by a vote of Conference ; and 
the secretary proceeded to call the list by conferences, in the order in which they 
stand in the Discipline, in the chapter on boundaries. ‘The secretaries reported the 
vote as follows :—Nays 117, against reversing the decision of the Baltimore Confer- 
ence ; and 56 yeas, in favour of reversing that decision.” 


{ omit the lists of the names of those who voted, and proceed to read the subse- 
quent proceedings (p. 79) :— 


‘When S. Olin’s name was called, he asked to be excused from voting on this 
question, because indisposition had prevented him from hearing the whole case. He 
was, on motion, excused. 

* J, A. Gere also asked to be excused from voting, because he had once sat in 
judgment on the case, and had been called upon as a witness. He was not excused. 

: “It appeared, on calling the list, that J. G. Dow, R. Paine, and L. Scott were 
absent. 


59 


“ N. Bangs and S. Dunwedy were reported sick. _ 

‘So the motion to reverse the act of the Baltimore Annual Conference was lost 
by the above vote of 117 to 56. 

“The chair decided that this vote virtually affirmed the action of the Baltimore 
Annual Conference, in suspending Francis A. Harding from his ministerial standing. 
W. Capers took an appeal from the decision of the chair. The appeal was put, and 
the decision of the chair sustained, by a vote of 111 for sustaining the decision, and 
53 against sustaining it. So the vote virtually affirmed the action of the Baltimore 
Conference on suspending F. A. Harding.” 


In connexion with this, I call your Honours’ attention to the question of Maryland 
Law which is involved in it. The debates of the General Conference of 1844 
(pp. 21, 22) show that legal opinions were produced from the Honourable William D. 
Merrick, U. S. Senator, and Mr. Edmund Key, showing that Mr. Harding could not 
manumit his slaves. These opinions were produced before a committee of the Balti- 
more Conference, which was appointed to investigate the case of Mr. Hardmg. Mr. 
Merrick’s opinion is nm these words :— 


“* At the request of Mr Harding, I have to state that, under the laws of Maryland, 
no slave can be emaneipated to remain in that State, nor unless provision be made 
by the person emancipating him for his removal from the State, which removal must 
take place, unless for good and sufficient reason the competent authorities grant per- 
mission to the manumitted slave to remain. 

“There has lately (winter of 1843) been a statute enacted by the,State legisla- 
ture, securing to married females the property (slaves of course included) which 
was theirs at the time of their marriage, and protecting it from the power and labili- 
ties of their husbands. 

(Signed) “© Wittiam D. Merrick.” 


The opmion of Judge Key is as follows :— 


“The Rey. Mr. Harding having married Miss Swan, who, at the time of her mar- 
riage, was entitled to some slaves, I am requested to say, whether he can legally 
manumit them or not? By an act of Assembly, no person can manumit a slave in 
Maryland ; and by another act of our Assembly, a husband has no other or further 
right to his wife’s slaves than their labour, while he lives. He can neither sell nor 
liberate them. Neither can he and his wife, either jomtly or separately, manumit 
her slaves, by deed, or otherwise. A reference to the Acts of Assembly of Maryland 
will show this. “« Epmunp Key. 

* Prince George Caunty, April 25th, 1844.” 


The law of Maryland, on the subject of slavery, is also set forth in the debates of 
the General Conference of 1844: indeed, there are several of them, which appear to 
have been copied from books in the library of the Historical Society in this city. 
The first which I shall read is chap. 293 :— 


a 

“ Sec. 1. Be at enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, That from and after 
the passage of this act, any married woman may become seized or possessed of any 
property, real or of slaves, by direct bequest, demise, gift, purchase, or distribution, 
in her own name, and as of her own property ; provided, the same does not come 
from her husband after coverture. 

** Src. 2. And be it enacted, That hereafter, when any woman possessed of a pro- 
perty in slaves, shall marry, her property in such slaves, and their natural increase, 
shall continue to her, notwithstanding her coverture; and she shall have, hold, and 
possess the same as her separate property, exempt from any liability for the debts or 
contracts of the husband. 

“Suc. 3. And be ut enacted, That when any woman during coverture shall become 
entitled to, or possessed of, slaves by conveyance, gift, inheritance, distribution, or 
otherwise, such slaves, together with their natural increase, shall enure and belong to 
the wife in like manner as is above provided as to slaves which she may possess at 
the time of marriage. 


60 


“Sxc. 4. And be it enacted, That the control and management of all such slaves, 
the direction of their labour, and the receipts of the productions thereof, shall remain 
to the husband agreeably to the laws heretofore in force. All suits to recover the 
property or possession of such slaves, shall be prosecuted or defended, as the case 
may be, in the joint names of the husband and wife ; in case of the death of the 
wife, such slaves shall descend and go to her children, and their descendants, subject 
to the use of the husband during life, without liability to his creditors ; and if she die 
without leaving children living, or descendants of such children living, they shall de- 
scend and go to the husband. ‘ 

“Src. 5. Be it enacted, That the slaves owned by a femme-covert under the provi- 
sions of this act, may be sold by the joint deed of the husband and wife, executed, 
proved, and recorded agreeably to the laws now in force in regard to the conveyance 
of real estate of femme-coverts, and not otherwise. 

“Snro.6. And be it enacted, That a wife shall have a right to make a will, 
and give all her property, or any part thereof, to her husband, and to other persons, 
with the consent of the husband subscribed to said will; provided always, that the 
wife shall have been privately examined by the witnesses to her will, apart and out 
of the presence and hearing of her husband, whether she doth make the same will 
freely and voluntarily, and without being induced thereto by fear or threats of, or ill 
usage by, said husband, and says she does it willingly and freely ; provided, that no 
will under this act shall be valid, unless made at least sixty days before the death of 
the testatrix.” ; 


And then, on the subject of manumission, we have an extract from the laws of 
Maryland, from Dorsey’s “‘ Laws of Maryland,” in 1831. JI read from the debates 
of the Conference of 1844, p. 24 :— 


“<< And be it enacted, That it shall hereafter be the duty of every clerk of a county 
im this State, whenever a deed of manumission shall be left in his office for record, 
and of every register of wills in every county of this State, whenever a will manu- 
mitting a slave or slaves shall be admitted to probate, to send, within five days there- 
after (under a penalty of ten dollars for each and every omission so to do, to be 
recovered before any Justice of the peace, one half whereof shall go to the informer, 
and the other half to the State) an extract from such deed or will, stating the names, 
number, and ages of the slave or slaves so manumitted, a list whereof, in the case 
of the will so proved, shall be filed therewith by the executor or administrator to the 
board of managers for Maryland for removing the people of colour of said State ; 
and it shall be the duty of said board, on receiving the same, to notify the American 
Colonization Society, or the Maryland State Colonization Society thereof, and to 
propose to such society, that they shall engage, at the expense of said society, to 
remove said slave or slaves so manumitted to Liberia ; and if the said society shall 
so engage, then it shall be the duty of the said board of managers to have the said 
slave or slaves delivered to the agent of such society, at such place as the said society 
shall appomt for receiving such slave or slaves, for the purpose of such removal, at 
such time as the said society shall appoint ; and in case the said society shall refuse 
so to receive and remove the person or persons so manumitted and offered; or in 
case the said person or persons shall srefuse so to be removed, then it shall be the 
duty of the said board of managers to remove the said person or persons to such 
other place or places beyond the limits of this State, as the said board shall approve 
of, and the said person or persons shall be willing to go to, and provide for their 
reception and support such place or places as the board may think necessary, until 
they shall be able to provide for themselves, out of any money that may be earned by 
their hire, or may be otherwise provided for that purpose ; and in case the said per- 
son or persons shall refuse to be removed to any place beyond the limits of this 
State, and shall persist in remaining therein, then it shall be the duty of said board 
to inform the sheriff of the county wherein such person or persons may be, of such 
refusal, and it shall thereupon be the duty of said sheriff forthwith to arrest, or cause 
to be arrested, the said person or persons so refusing to emigrate from this State, and 
transport the said person or persons beyond the limits of this State; and all slaves 
shall be capable of receiving manumission for the purpose of removal as aforesaid, 
with their consent, of whatever age, any law to the contrary notwithstanding.” 
Chap. 281, sec. 3.’” 


61 


We find a supplement to this law in 1832 :— 


“¢CuHap. 145, Suc. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, That 
whenever the board of managers, appointed under the act to which this is a supple- 
ment, shall inform the sheriff of any county of the refusal to remove any person or 
persons therein mentioned, and shall provide a sum sufficient to defray the removal 
of said person or persons beyond the limits of the State, every sheriff then failing to 
comply, within the term of one month, with the duties prescribed in the third section 
of the act aforesaid, shal] forfeit fifty dollars for every person he shall neglect so to 
remove, to be recoverable in the county court, by action of debt on indictment. 

“ «Suc. 2. And be it enacted, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to 
repeal any part of the act to which this is a supplement.’ 

“The foregoing is a copy, corrected by myself, from the acts referred to, as pub- 
lished in Dorsey’s Laws of Maryland. 

‘“¢Georcr H. Moors, 
Assistant Librarian New-York Historical Society.” 


We have now, may it please your Honours, finished the case of Mr. Harding, and 
we come to the case of Bishop Andrew. I read from page 80 of the first of the 
Proofs :— 


“Monpay, May 20.—J. A. Collins offered the following resolution, which was 
adopted, viz. :— 

‘‘¢ Whereas it is currently reported, and generally understood, that one of the 
bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church has become connected with slavery ; 
and whereas it is due to this General Conference to have a proper understanding of 
the matter; therefore, 

“«¢ Resolved, That the Committee on the Episcopacy be instructed to ascertain the 
facts in the case, and report the results of their investigation to this body to-morrow 
morning. Joun A. Cou.ins, 

J. B. Hoventarine.’ 

‘*Turspay, May 21.—The Committee on Episcopacy presented a further report, 
No. 3, which was read, and on motion of J. A. Collins, laid on the table to be the 
order of the day for to-morrow. 

‘¢ Wepnespay, May 22.—As no reports from select committees were offered, on 
motion of A. Griffith, Conference proceeded to consider the order of the day, viz., 
the report No. 3 of the Committee on Episcopacy. It reads as follows :— 

*¢«'The Committee on Episcopacy, to whom was referred a resolution, submitted 
yesterday, instructing them to mquire whether any one of the superintendents is 
connected with slavery, beg leave to present the following as their report on the 
subject :— 

ib The committee had ascertained, previous to the reference of the resolution, that 
Bishop Andrew is connected with slavery, and had obtained an interview with him 
on the subject ; and having requested him to state the whole facts in the premises, 
hereby present a written communication from him in relation to this matter, and beg 
leave to offer it as his statement and explanation of the case, 

‘ To the Committee on Episcopacy :— 

‘Dear Brethren,—In reply to your inquiry, I submit the following statement of all 
the facts bearing on my connexion with slavery. Several years since an old lady, of 
Augusta, Georgia, bequeathed to me a mulatto girl, in trust that I should take care 
of her until she should be nineteen years of age ; that with her consent I should then 
send her to Liberia ; and that in case of her refusal, I should keep her, and make her 
as free as the laws of the State of Georgia would permit. When the time arrived, 
she refused to go to Liberia, and of her own choice remains legally my slave, although 
I derive no pecuniary profit from her. She continues to live in her own house on my 
lot ; and has been, and is at present, at perfect liberty to go to a free State at her 
pleasure ; but the laws of the State will not permit her emancipation, nor admit 
such deed of emancipation to record, and she refuses to leave the State. In her 
case, therefore, 1 have been made a slaveholder legally, but not with my own 
consent, 

‘2dly. About five years since, the mother of my former wife left to her daughter, 
not to me, a negro boy; and as my wife died without a will more than two years since, 


62 


by the laws of the State he becomes legally my property. In this case, as in the 
former, emancipation is impracticable in the State ; but he shall be at liberty to leave 
the State whenever I shall be satisfied that he is prepared to provide for himself, or I 
can have sufficient security that he will be protected and provided for in the place to 
which he may go. 

‘ 3dly. In the month of January last I married my present wife, she being at the 
time possessed of slaves, inherited from her former husband’s estate, and belonging 
to her. Shortly after my marriage, being unwilling to become their owner, regarding 
them as strictly hers, and the law not permitting their emancipation, I secured them 
to her by a deed of trust. 

‘Tt will be obvious to you, from the above statement of facts, that I have neither 
bought nor sold a slave; that in the only two instances in which I am legally a 
slaveholder, emancipation is impracticable. As to the servants owned by my wife, I 
have no legal responsibility in the premises, nor could my wife emancipate them if 
she desired to do so. I have thus plainly stated all the facts in the case, and submit 
the statement for the consideration of the General Conference. Yours respectfully, 

‘James O. ANDREW.’ 

««¢ A] which is respectfully submitted. 

“¢RopertT Paine, Chairman.’ 

‘A. Griffith and J. Davis offered the following preamble and resolution, which 
were read and debated :— 

“«« Whereas the Rev. James O. Andrew, one of the bishops of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, has become connected with slavery, as communicated in his statement 
in his reply to the inquiry of the Committee on the Episcopacy, which reply is em- 
bodied in their report, No. 3, offered yesterday; and whereas it has been, from the 
origin of said Church, a settled policy and the invariable usage to elect no person to 
the office of bishop who was embarrassed with this ‘‘ great evil,” as under such cir- 
cumstances it would be impossible for a bishop to exercise the functions and perform 
the duties assigned to a general superintendent with acceptance, in that large portion 
of his charge in which slavery does not exist ; and whereas Bishop Andrew was 
himself nominated by our brethren of the slaveholding States, and elected by the 
General Conference of 1832, as a candidate, who, though living in the midst of a 
slaveholdmg population, was nevertheless free from all personal connexion with 
slavery ; and whereas this is, of all periods in our history as a Church, the one least 
favourable to such an innovation upon the practice and usage of Methodism as to 
confide a part of the itinerant general superintendency to a slaveholder ; therefore, 

“«Resolved, That the Rev. James O. Andrew be, and he is hereby affectionately 
mae to resign his office as one of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

“When brother Griffith, in favour of his resolution, had spoken as long as the 
rule allowed, a motion was made to permit him to proceed. G. Filmore offered as a 
substitute for this, that the rule which restricts a speaker to fifteen minutes, be sus- 
pended during the discussion of this subject. The substitute prevailed, by a vote of 
one hundred and three. 

‘On motion of N. Bangs, it was resolved, that when we adjourn, it be to meet 
again this afternoon at half-past three o’clock, one hundred and four voting for it. 

““W. Capers then moved, that we do now adjourn. Lost. 

‘J. P. Durbin moved to reconsider the vote by which we resolved to meet this 
afternoon. ‘This was lost. , 

“The motion for adjournment was renewed and carried; and Conference ad- 
journed with prayer by brother Tippett. . 

“ Werpnespay Arrernoon, May 22.—Conference met, pursuant to adjournment, 
at half-past three o’clock, Bishop Soule in the chair, and was opened with religious 
services by brother Fowler. 

“The chair called for reports from standing and select committees. None being 
offered, W. Cooper moved that the resolution under discussion this morning be post- 
poned, and made the order of the day for to-morrow morning. Lost. The conside- 
ration was resumed, and several speakers were heard. 

“On motion of J. A. Collins, Conference adjoumed with prayer by brother Bond. 

“'Tuurspay Mornine, May 23.—Conference met at the regular hour, Bishop 
Hedding in the chair, and was opened with religious exercises by brother Robinson. 

“The journal of yesterday afternoon was read and approved. 


63 


‘The chair called for reports from standing and select committees. None were 
presented. 

‘“« Conference resumed the consideration of the resolution under discussion yester- 
day, viz., the resolution offered by brothers Griffith and Davis on Wednesday. 

‘J. B. Finley offered a substitute for the resolution, in the followmg words, 
viz. :— 

‘“«¢ Whereas the Discipiine of our Church forbids the doing anything calculated to 
destroy our itinerant general superintendency, and whereas Bishop Andrew has 
become connected with slavery by marriage and otherwise, and this act having drawn 
after it circumstances which, in the estimation of the General Conference, will 
greatly embarrass the exercise of his office as an itinerant general superintendent, if 
not in some places entirely prevent it ; therefore, 

“¢< Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that he desist from the 
exercise of this office so long as this impediment remains. 

cot J. B. FINLEY, 
J. M. Trimsre.’ 


‘“« A discussion on the above substitute ensued, occupying the morning session. A 
few minutes before one o’clock, when W. D. Cass was speaking, it was resolved to 
continue the session five minutes after the regular time, for the purpose of hearing a 
statement which J. Early wished to make. When this was made, Conference 
adjourned with prayer by brother Steele. 

“ Fripay, May 24.—The order of the day, namely, the above-named substitute, 
(Finley’s,) was resumed, and its discussion continued until one o’clock, when Confer- 
ence adjourned with prayer by brother Ferguson. 

“ Sarurpay, May 25.—The order of the day, namely, the substitute of brothers 
Finley and Trimble, for the resolution offered by brothers Griffith and Davis, was 
resumed. 

“ During the discussion, J. P. Durbin asked leave of absence, on account of family 
affliction. The leave was granted. 

“ After the consideration of the substitute had been resumed, G. Baker moved 
that the vote by which the rule limiting a speaker to fifteen minutes had been sus- 
pended, be reconsidered. On motion of J. E. Evans, the proposal to reconsider was 
laid on the table. The discussion was continued until fifteen minutes before the 
hour of adjournment, when, on motion of L. M. Lee, Conference adjourned with 
prayer by brother Bush. 

‘“* Monpay, May 27.—The whole session was occupied in discussing the substitute 
under consideration for some days past. 

“'Turspay Mornine, May 28.—Conference resumed the consideration of Finley’s 
substitute. J. A. Collins, who was speaking at the adjournment yesterday, concluded 
his remarks, and was followed by E. W. Sehon, W. Winans, and J. B. Finley. 
Bishop Andrew also addressed the Conference. 

“At the request of T. Crowder, brother Finley gave way to permit him to offer the 
following resolution :— 

“¢« Resolved, That when this Conference adjourn, it adjourn to meet again at half- 
past three o’clock.’ 

“The resolution prevailed. P. Cartwright obtained the floor, but the hour of 
adjournment haying come, Conference adjourned with prayer by brother A. D. Peck. 

“ Turspay ArTerRNoon, May 28.—The subject under consideration at the adjourn- 
ment was resumed, and discussed by P. Cartwright and J. Stamper. 

“When P. Cartwright had concluded his remarks, P. Crandall offered a resolution, 
that the discussion on this question close at half-past five o’clock this afternoon. 
J. A. Collins rose to a point of order, whether the resolution could be entertained, the 
Conference having no rule for the previous question. The chair decided that the 
resolution was not in order. From this decision J. B. Houghtaling appealed ; and 
the decision of the chair was sustained by a vote of one hundred and three. 

“© S. Dunwody obtained the floor, but gave way for a motion to adjourn, which was 
withdrawn to permit Bishop Soule to make a few remarks, asking leave of the Con- 
ference, before the final action, to make some remarks on the subject now under con- 
sideration. J. Early moved that Bishop Soule and all the other bishops be at liberty 
to address the Conference on the subject now under consideration, at any time after 
brother Dunwody has cencluded his remarks. 


64 


‘Without taking the vote, on motion, Conference adjourned with the benediction 
by Bishop Waugh, 

“ Werpnespay Mornine, May 29.—Conference took up the resolution of J. Early, 
which was under discussion when Conference adjourned. A motion was made to lay 
the resolution on the table, which prevailed. J. S. Porter moved to reconsider the 
last vote. Carried. J. P. Durbin moved the previous question, which being sus- 
tained, the vote on the resolution before the Conference was taken, and the resolution 
was adopted. 

“The Conference renewed the consideration of the substitute offered by J. B. 
Finley. S. Dunwody addressed the Conference, and was followed by Bishop Soule. 

‘“‘N. Bangs moved, that when Conference adjourn, it adjourn to mect again at 
half-past three o’clock this afternoon. Carried. 

“Bishop Soule having concluded his remarks, the Conference adjourned with the 
benediction by brother Dunwody.”’ 


1 will hereafter read the remarks of Bishop Soule from the debates of the 
General Conference of 1844; but, before doing so, I beg your Honours to notice the 
dates of the proceedings which have been read, that you may see how long the dis- 
cussion continued. 


‘¢Wrpnespay Arrernoon, May 29.—Conference resumed the consideration of 
the substitute of J. B. Finley. J.P. Durbin addressed the Conference, after some 
explanation by W. A. Smith, A. B. Longstreet, and others. W. Capers then 
obtained the floor, but gave way for a motion to adjourn, which being put was car- 
ried. 

“'Tuurspay, May 30.—The consideration of Finley’s substitute was resumed, W. 
Capers having the floor, who addressed the Conference. When he had concluded, 
G. Peck obtained the floor, but yielded it to J. Hobart, who moved the previous 
question. J. P. Durbin moved, that on the vote whether the main question shall 
now be put, the ayes and noes be taken. ‘The ayes and noes were ordered by a vote 
of one hundred and seventeen. 

“The list was called, and ninety-eight answered in favour of putting the main 
question, and eighty against it. 

‘“‘ So the motion to take the main question was lost, not having a majority of two- 
thirds. 

‘“* At this moment Bishop Hedding suggested that the Conference have no after- 
noon session, and thus allow the bishops time to consult together, with a hope that 
they might be able to present a plan of adjusting our present difficulties. The 
suggestion was received with general and great cordiality ; and, on motion, the dis- 
cussion of the substitute under consideration was postponed until to-morrow morning. 

“Fripay, May 31.—Bishop Waugh, in behalf of the bishops, presented the 
following communication, which was read by himself, and also by the Secretary :— 


“¢ To the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 


“ «Rev. anp Dear BretTuren,—The undersigned respectfully and affectionately 
offer to your calm consideration the result of their consultation this afternoon in 
regard to the unpleasant and very delicate question which has been so long and so 
earnestly debated before your body. They have, with the liveliest interest, watched 
the progress of the discussion, and have awaited its termination with the deepest 
solicitude. As they have pored over this subject with anxious thought, by day and 
by night, they have been more and more impressed with the difficulties connected 
therewith, and the disastrous results which, in their apprehension, are the almost 
inevitable consequences of present action on the question now pending before you. 
To the undersigned it is fully apparent that a decision thereon, whether affirmatively 
or negatively, will most extensively disturb the peace and harmony of that widely- 
extended brotherhood which has so effectively operated for good in the United States 
of America and elsewhere during the last sixty years, in the development of a system 
of active energy, of which union has always beena main element. They have, with 
deep emotion, inquired, Can anything be done to avoid an evil so much deprecated 
by every friend of our common Methodism? Long and anxiously have they waited 
for a satisfactory answer to this inquiry, but they have paused in vain. At this pain- 


65 


ful crisis they have unanimously concurred in the propriety of recommending the 
postponement of further action in the case of Bishop Andrew until the ensuing 
General Conference. It does not enter into the design of the undersigned to 
argue the propriety of their recommendation; otherwise, strong and valid reasons 
might be adduced in its support. They cannot but think that if the embarrassment 
of Bishop Andrew should not cease before that time, the next General Conference, 
representing the pastors, ministers, and people of the several annual conferences, 
after all the facts m the case shall have passed in review before them, will be better 
qualified than the present General Conference can he to adjudicate the case wisely 
and discreetly. Until the cessation of the embarrassment, or the expiration of the 
mterval between the present and the ensuing General Conference, the undersigned 
believe that such a division of the work of the general superintendency might be 
made, without any infraction of a constitutional principle, as would fully employ 
Bishop Andrew in those sections of the Church in which his presence and services 
would be welcome and cordial. Ifthe course pursued on this occasion by the under- 
signed be deemed a novel one, they persuade themselves that their justification, in 
the view of all candid and peace-loving persons, will be found in their strong desire 
to prevent disunion, and to promote harmony in the Church. 
‘¢¢ Very respectfully and affectionately submitted, 
‘¢¢ JosHuUA SOULE, 

Extsyan Heppine, 

B. Waveu, 

T. A. Morris. 

“<« Thursday Afternoon, May 30, 1844.’ 


“J, A. Collins moved that the consideration of the communication just read be 
postponed until to-morrow morning, and that the communication itself be printed 
forthwith. A third readmg was called for, and ordered by the Conference. I. 
Winner moved to amend the above resolution by striking out ‘ to-morrow morning,’ 
and insertmg ‘four o’clock this afternoon.’ This amendment, on motion of J. 
Stamper, was laid on the table. TT. Stringfield called for a division of the resolu- 
tion; and that part which relates to the printing was adopted. ‘The other member 
of the resolution was also adopted. 

“ Saturpay, June 1.—At this juncture all the bishops on the platform addressed 
the Conference, in the following order :— 

‘“« BrsHop Hepprne said he wished to withdraw his name from the Address of the 
Bishops, presented yesterday. He had not been argued or persuaded into signing 
it, but had attached his name of his own free will and accord, because he thought it 
would be a peace measure ; but facts had come to his knowledge since, which led 
him to believe that such would not be the case. Again: he thought it would be 
adopted without debate, but he was convinced now that it would give rise to much 
discussion, and therefore he wished to withdraw his name from the paper on the 
table. 

‘‘Brsnop Waveu followed, and said he came into the measure, as his venerated 
and honoured colleague did, without persuasion or restraint. He considered it as 
the last resort to promote the future peace of the Church. He admitted he had not 
been very sanguine on the subject, and if it failed, he would not be disappointed. 
Still he did not desire to withdraw his name; he would regret if the communication 
should be the cause of lengthened debate, and in that case might feel called upon 
to withdraw his name from the document. At present he was content to let it remain. 

“ Bishop Morris succeeded, and said he wished his name to stand on that paper, 
as a testimony that he had done what he could to preserve the unity and peace of 
the Church. 

‘“‘ Brsnop Sours added, that his colleagues would certainly say, that they adopted 
the paper as freely as he did. He put his name to that document under the same 
circumstances as they did. He had not changed his views or convictions in any way, 
He wished his signature to stand to that document, which had now gone forth to the 
American people through a thousand mediums. 

‘““N. Bangs moved to lay the Address on the table. J. Early moved that the 
question of laying it on the table be taken by ayes and noes. This prevailed. ‘The 
vote was then taken, and nmety-five affirmative and eighty-four negative votes were 
given. So the Address of the Bishops was laid on the table. 


5 


66 


“J, A. Collins moved to take up the substitute of J. B. Finley, which had been 
laid on the table by a vote some days ago. J.C. Evans moved the previous ques- 
tion on taking up the substitute. The call for the previous question was sustained 
by two-thirds voting affirmatively ; and the substitute was taken up by another vote. 
J. T. Peck moved the previous question on the substitute, and the words, ‘ Shall 
the main question now be put?’ applied to the substitute, according to the resolution 
establishing the previous question. A motion that the vote whether the main ques- 
tion now be taken shall be by yeas and nays, was lost by a vote of 128 to47. The 
call for the previous question was sustained by the requisite majority, and the vote 
on the substitute being ordered, it was moved to take this vote by yeas and nays. 
The yeas and nays were ordered. The list by conferences was called, and the vote 
on the substitute was decided by 110 yeas, and 68 nays. So conference adopted 
the substitute of James B. Finley, which is in these words :— 

‘«« Whereas the Discipline of our Church forbids the dog anything calculated to 
destroy our itinerant general superintendency, and whereas Bishop Andrew has be- 
come connected with slavery by marriage and otherwise, and this act having drawn 
after it circumstances which, in the estimation of the General Conference, will great- 
ly embarrass the exercise of his office as an itinerant general superintendent, if not 
in some places entirely prevent it; therefore, 

‘¢¢ Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that he desist from 
the exercise of his office so long as this impediment remains.’ 

* During the call for yeas and nays, J. C. Clark asked to be excused from voting, 
as he was compelled, by the want of health in some members of his family, to remove 
from Texas. Conference by a vote declined excusing him.” 


If your Honours please, I beg leave here to read two resolutions which were offered 
in that Conference. I read from book of Proofs, No. 2, pp. 6, 7. 


‘“« Mr. Drake’s resolution proposed, but not acted on, in General Conference of 1844. 


«« «Whereas there have been found difficulties of a serious nature in the bishops of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church exercising a general superintendency ; therefore, 

“« ¢ Resolved, That the General Conference recommend the episcopacy to assign to 
each superintendent his sphere of labour for the next four years.’ 

“This proposition, not being in order, was offered as a suggestion, and no action 
was had on it. 


“ Mr. Durbin’s resolve not passed in that Conference. 


““« Resolved, That the case of Bishop Andrew be referred to the Church, and that 
the judgment of the next General Conference be deemed and taken to be the voice 
of the Church, whether Bishop Andrew shall continue to exercise his functions as a 
general superintendent in the Methodist Episcopal Church while he sustains the rela- 
tion to slavery as stated in his communication to the Conference, as reported to the 
Conference by the Committee on Episcopacy.’ ”’ 


I now return to the first of the Proofs, page 94. 


« L, Pierce gave notice that a Protest would be presented by the minority on this 
vote, at as early a day as practicable ; to be entered on the journals of the Conference. 

‘“W. Winans moved that the Conference do now adjourn. This motion was car- 
ried. After prayer by brother Sovereign, conference adjourned until Monday morn- 
ing, at half-past eight o’clock. 

“Monpay, June 3.—The following resolutions were offered by H. Slicer and T. 
B. Sargent :— 

“61. Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that the vote of 
Saturday last, in the case of Bishop Andrew, be understood as advisory only, and not 
in the light of a judicial mandate. 

“¢2. Resolved, That the final disposition of Bishop Andrew’s case be postponed 
until the General Conference of 1848, in conformity with the suggestion of the 
bishops in their Address to the Conference on Friday, 31st May. 

‘“¢H. Sricer, 
“¢ June 3, 1844.’ T. B. Sarcenr. 


5* 


67 


‘Tt was moved to lay these resolutions on the table for the present. On the ques- 
tion of laying them on the table, the yeas and nays were called for, and ordered.— 
Ayes 75, Noes 68. 

‘So the resolutions, for the present, are laid on the table.” 


I believe that they were never afterwards called up again, so that the Conference 
resolved not to put that construction upon its acts. 


‘“« Dr. Capers offered a series of resolutions, which were read, and lie on the table, 
under the rule. ‘They are as follows :— 


“« ¢ Be it resolved by the delegates of all the annual conferences in General Confer- 
ence assembled : 

“«¢'That we recommend to the annual conferences to suspend the constitutional re- 
strictions which limit the powers of the General Conference so far, and so far only, 
as to allow of the following alterations in the government of the Church, namely :— 

“«« That the Methodist Episcopal Church in these United States and territories, and 
the republic of Texas, shall constitute two General Conferences, to meet quadren- 
nially, the one at some place south, and the other north of the line which now di- 
vides between the States commonly designated as free States and those in which 
slavery exists. 

«<2. That each one of the two General Conferences thus constituted shall have 
full powers, under the limitations and restrictions which are now of force and binding 
on the General Conference, to make rules and regulations for the Church, within 
their territorial limits respectively, and to elect bishops for the same. 

«<¢3, That the two General Conferences aforesaid, shall have jurisdiction as fol- 
lows :—The Southern General Conference shall comprehend the States of Virginia, 
Kentucky, and Missouri, and the States and Territories lying southerly thereto, and 
also the republic of Texas, to be known and designated by the title of the Southern 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States. And 
the Northern General Conference to comprehend all those States and Territories 
lying north of the States of Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, as above, to be known 
and designated by the title of the Northern General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in the United States. 

«¢A. And be it further resolved, That as soon as three-fourths of all the members 
of all the annual conferences voting on these resolutions, shall approve the same, the 
said Southern and Northern General Conferences shall be deemed as having been 
constituted by such approval ; and it shall be competent for the Southern annual con- 
ferences to elect delegates to said Southern General Conference, to meet in the city 
of Nashville, Tenn., on the first of May, 1848 ; or sooner, if a majority of two-thirds 
of the members of the annual conferences composing that General Conference shall 
desire the same. 

“©¢5, And be it further resolved, as aforesaid, That the Book Concerns at New- 
York and Cincinnati shall be held and conducted as the property and for the benefit 
of all the annual conferences as heretofore—the editors and agents to be elected 
once in four years at the time of the session of the Northern General Conference, 
and the votes of the Southern General Conference to be cast by the delegates of that 
Conference attending the Northern for that purpose. 

“«¢6. And be it further resolved, That our Church organization for foreign mis- 
sions shall be maintained and conducted jomtly between the two General Confer- 
ences as one Church, in such manner as shall be agreed upon from time to time 
between the two great branches of the Church as represented in the said two 
Conferences.’ 

‘“¢On motion of N. Bangs, the resolutions offered by W. Capers this morning were 
referred to a select committee of nine, who were instructed to report on them as 
soon as practicable.” 


It was m reference to these resolutions that the report was made by a committee 
of nine, which we call a “ Plan of Separation.” 


Mr. Fancuer,—The committee of nine to which those resolutions were referred, 
as is shown by the proceedings which have been read, did not make a report. That 


68 


committee could not agree. ‘The Plan of Separation was reported by another com- 
mittee of nine. 


Mr. Lorp,—That is shown by the journal. 


“ Wepnespay, Junr 5.—W. Capers returned certain resolutions to the Confer- 
ence, on which a special committee was appointed, stating that the committee could 
not agree on a report which they judged would be acceptable to the Conference.— 
See Journal of June 3, p. 86. 


“A. B. Longstreet, in behalf of the delegations from the Southern and South- 
Western conferences, presented the following declaration, which was read”’ :— 


I beg your Honours to mark this. It is called a “‘ Declaration.”’ 


“The delegates of the conferences in the slave-holding States take leave to 
declare to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, that the con- 
tinued agitation of the subject of slavery and abolition m a portion of the Church; 
the frequent action on that subject in the General Conference ; and especially the 
extra-judicial proceedings against Bishop Andrew, which resulted, on Saturday last, 
in the virtual suspension of him from his office as superintendent, must produce a 
state of things in the South, which renders a continuance of the jurisdiction of this 
General Conference over these conferences inconsistent with the success of the min- 
istry in the slave-holding States.” 


This was signed by fifty-two gentlemen from the Southern conferences, whose 
names may be found on pp. 97, 98. 


«¢ A motion was made by C. Elliott to refer this declaration to a committee of nine. 
This gave rise to some discussion ; and the previous question was moved, and the 
call sustained. The select committee of nine was ordered, and the paper referred 
to them. 

‘“‘ J. B. M’Ferrin offered the following resolution :— 

“¢ Resolved, That the committee appomted to take into consideration the com- 
munication of the delegates from the Southern conferences be instructed, provided 
they cannot in their judgment devise a plan for an amicable adjustment of the 
difficulties now existing in the Church, on the subject of slavery, to devise, if pos- 
sible, a constitutional plan for a mutual and friendly division of the Church. 

“é¢ J. B. M’Ferrin, 
Tosias Spicer.’ 


“'T. Crowder’s motion to strike out the word ‘ constitutional’ did not prevail, and 
the resolution was adopted. 

“The chair announced the following brethren as the select CommirTrE oF NINE,— 
Robert Paine, Glezen Filmore, Peter Akers, Nathan Bangs, Thomas Crowder, 
Thomas B. Sargent, William Winans, Leonidas L. Hamline, and James Porter.” 


Of this committee, I may mention, five voted against Bishop Andrew and four for 
him. It was therefore a committee of a compromise character. 


“ Tuurspay, June 6.—J. Early asked that H. B. Bascom have teave to read to 
the Conference the Protest that L. Pierce, on Saturday, gave notice would be pre- 
sented by the Southern delegates. When the reading by Dr. Bascom was finished, 
the Chair decided that the Protest be entered upon the journal. 

‘“‘ Mr. Simpson offered the following resolution, which was adopted :— 

“ « Resolved, That the Conference appoint brothers Olin, Durbin, and Hamline, a 
committee to prepare a statement of the facts connected with the proceedings in the 
case of Bishop Andrew; and that they have liberty to examine the Protest just pre- 
sented by the Southern brethren.” ’ : 


With the permission of your Honours, my venerable friend, Dr. Smith, will read the 
Protest to which these proceedings refer. 


The Rey. Dr. Smith read it as follows :— 


69 


“THE PROTEST. 


“ Protest of the Minority of the General Conference against the Action of that Body 
im the case of Bishop Andrew. 


“Tn behalf of thirteen annual conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
and portions of the ministry and membership of several other conferences, embracing 
nearly five thousand ministers, travelling and local, and a membership of nearly five 
hundred thousand, constitutionally represented in this General Conference, we, the 
undersigned, a minority of the delegates of the several annual conferences in General 
Conference assembled, after mature reflection, impelled by convictions we cannot 
resist, and in conformity with the rights and usages of minorities, in the instance of 
deliberative assemblies and judicial tribunals, in similar circumstances of division and 
disagreement, do most solemnly, and in due form, protest against the recent act of a 
majority of this General Conference, in an attempt, as understood by the minority, 
to degrade and punish the Rev. James O. Andrew, one of the bishops of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, by declaring it to be the sense or judgment of the General 
Conference that he desist from the exercise of his episcopal functions, without the 
exhibition of any alleged offence agamst the laws or discipline of the Church, without 
form of trial, or legal conviction of any kind, and in the absence of any charge of 
want of qualification or faithfulness in the performance of the duties pertainmg to 
his office. 

“ We protest against the act of the majority in the case of Bishop Andrew, as 
extra-judicial to all intents and purposes, being both without law and contrary to 
law. We protest against the act, because we recognise in this General Conference 
no right, power, or authority, ministerial, judicial, or administrative, to suspend or 
depose a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, or otherwise subject him to any 
official disability whatever, without the formal presentation of a charge or charges, 
alleging that the bishop to be dealt with has been guilty of the violation of some 
law, or at least some disciplinary obligation of the Church, and also upon conviction 
of such charge, after due form of trial. We protest against the act in question as a 
violation of the fundamental law, usually known as the compromise law of the 
Church, on the subject of slavery—the only law which can be brought to bear upon 
the case of Bishop Andrew, and the assertion and maintenance of which, until it is 
constitutionally revoked, is guaranteed by the honour and good faith of this body, as 
the representative assembly of the thirty-three annual conferences known as contract- 
ing parties in the premises. 

“And we protest against the act further, as an attempt to establish a dangerous 
precedent, subversive of the union and stability of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
and especially as placing in jeopardy the general superintendency of the Church, by 
subjecting any bishop of the Church at any time to the will and caprice of a majority 
of the General Conference, not only without law, but in defiance of the restraints 
and provisions of law. The undersigned, a minority of the General Conference, in 
protesting, as they do, against the late act of the majority, in the virtual suspension 
of Bishop Andrew, regard it as due to themselves and those they represent, as well 
as the character and interests of the Church at large, to declare, by solemn and for- 
mal avowal, that after a careful examination of the entire subject, in all its relations 
and bearings, they protest as above, for the reasons and upon the grounds following, 
viz :—Ist. The proceeding against Bishop Andrew in this General Conference has 
been upon the assumption that he is connected with slavery—that he is the legal 
holder and owner of slave property. On the subject of slavery in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, both as it regards the ministry and membership, we have special 
law, upon which the adjudication of all questions of slavery must, by intention of law, 
proceed. The case of Bishop Andrew, therefore, presents a simple question of law 
and fact, and the undersigned cannot consent that the force of circumstances, and 
other merely extrinsic considerations, shall be allowed to lead to any issue, except 
that indicated by the law and the facts in the case. In the late act of the majority, 
law, express law, is appealed from, and expediency in view of circumstances— 
relative propriety—assumed necessity, is substituted in its place as a rule of judg- 
ment. It is assumed, and the assumption acted upon, that expediency may have 
jurisdiction even in the presence of law—the law, too, being special, and covering 
the case in terms. In the absence of law, it might be competent for the Gencral 


70 


Conference to act upon other grounds ; this is not disputed, nor yet that it would 
have been competent for the Conference to proceed upon the forms of law—but that 
the terms and conditions of a special enactment, having all the force of a common 
public charter, can be rightfully waved in practice, at the promptings of a fugitive, 
unsettled expediency, is a position the undersigned regard, not merely as erroneous, 
but as fraught with danger to the best interests of the Church. 

« The law of the Church on slavery has always existed, since 1785, but especially 
since 1804, and in view of the adjustment of the whole subject in 1816, as a virtual, 
though informal, contract of mutual concession and forbearance between the North and 
the South, then, as now, known and existing as distinct parties, in relation to the 
vexed questions of slavery and abolition ;—those conferences found in States where 
slavery prevailed constituting the Southern party, and those in the non-slaveholding 
States, the Northern, exceptions to the rule being found in both. The rights of the 
legal owners of slaves, in all the slaveholding States, are guaranteed by the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, and by the local constitutions of the States respectively, 
as the supreme law of the land, to which every minister and member of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church within the limits of the United States’ government professes 
subjection, and pledges himself to submit, as an article of Christian faith, in the 
common creed of the Church. Domestic slavery, therefore, wherever it exists in this 
country, is a civil regulation, existing under the highest santcions of constitutional 
and municipal law known to the tribunals of the country; and it has always been as- 
sumed at the South, and relied upon as correct, that the North, or non-slaveholding 
States, had no right, civil or moral, to interfere with relations and interests thus 
secured to the people of the South by all the graver forms of law and social 
order, and that it cannot be done without an abuse of the constitutional rights 
of citizenship. The people of the North, however, have claimed to think differ- 
ently, and have uniformly acted toward the South im accordance with such 
opposition of opinion. Precisely in accordance, too, with this state of things, 
as it regards the general population of the North and South, respectively, 
the Methodist Episcopal Church has been divided in opinion and feeling on 
the subject of slavery and abolition, since its organization in 1784: two 
separate and distinct parties have always existed. The Southern conferences, in 
agreeing to the main principles of the compromise law in 1804 and 1816, con- 
ceded, by express stipulation, their right to resist Northern interference in any 
form, upon the condition, pledged by the North, that while the whole Church, by 
common consent, united in proper effort for the mitigation and final removal of 
the evil of slavery, the North was not to interfere, by excluding from member- 
ship or ministerial office in the Church persons owning and holding slaves in 
States where emancipation is not practicable, and where the liberated slave is not 
permitted to enjoy freedom. Such was the compact of 1804 and 1816, finally 
agreed to by the parties after a long and fearful struggle, and such is the com- 
pact now—the proof being derived from history and the testimony of living 
witnesses. And is it possible to suppose that the original purpose and mtended 
application of the law was not designed to embrace every member, minister, order, 
and officer of the Methodist Episcopal Church? Is the idea of excepted cases 
allowable by fair construction of the law? Do not the reasons and intendment of 
the law place it beyond doubt, that every conceivable case of alleged misconduct 
that can arise, connected with slavery or abolition, is to be subjected, by consent 
and contract of parties, to the jurisdiction of this great conservative arrangement ? 

“Ts there anything in the law or its reasons creating an exception in the instance of 
bishops? Would the South have entered into the arrangement, or in any form con- 
sented to the law, had it been intimated by the North, that bishops must be an excep- 
tion to the rule? Are the virtuous dead of the North to be slandered by the sup- 
position, that they intended to except bishops, and thus accomplished their pur- 
poses, in negotiation with the South, by a resort to deceptive and dishonourable 
means? If bishops are not named, no more are presiding elders, agents, editors 
—or, indeed, any other officers of the Church, who are nevertheless included, 
although the same rule of construction would except them also. The enactment 
was for an entire people, east, west, north, and south. It was for the Church, 
and every member of it—for the common weal of the body—and is therefore uni- 
versal and unrestricted in its application ; and no possible case can be settled upon 
any other principles, without a direct violation of this law both in fact and form. 


71 


The law being what we have assumed, any violation of it, whatever may be its form 
or mode, is as certainly a breach of good faith as an infringement of law. It must 
be seen, from the manner in which the compromise was effected, inthe shape of a 
law, agreed to by equal contracting parties,—‘ the several annual conferences, — 
after a long and formal negotiation, that it was not a mere legislative enactment, a 
simple decree of a General Conference, but partakes of the nature of a grave com- 
pact, and is invested with all the sacredness and sanctions of a solemn treaty, binding 
respectively the well-known parties to its terms and stipulations. If this be so— 
and with the evidence accessible who can doubt it ?—if this be so, will it prove a 
light matter for this General Conference to violate or disregard the obligation of 
this legal compromise, in the shape of public recognised law? Allow that the pre- 
sent parties in this controversy cannot be brought to view the subject of the law in 
question in the same light, can such a matter end in a mere difference of opinion as 
it respects the immediate parties? The law exists in the Discipline of the Church 
—the law is known, and its reasons are known, as equally binding upon both parties ; 
and what is the likelihood of the imputation of bad faith under the circumstances ? 
What the hazard, that such imputation, as the decision of public opinion, it may be 
from a thousand tribunals, will be brought to bear, with all the light and force of 
conviction, upon any act of this body, in violation of the plain provisions of long- 
established law, originating in treaty, and based upon the principles of conventional 
compromase ? 

“In proportion to our love of truth, of law, and order, are we not called upon to 
pause and weigh well the hazard, before, as a General Conference, we incur it be- 
yond change or remedy? The undersigned have long looked to the great conserva- 
tive law of the Discipline on the subject of slavery and abolition, as the only charter 
of connexional union between the North and the South; and whenever this bond of 
connexion is rendered null and void, no matter in what form, or by what means, 
they are compelled to regard the Church, to every practical purpose, as already 
divided without the intervention of any other agency. By how far, therefore, they 
look upon the union of the Methodist Episcopal Church as essential to its prosperity, 
and the glory and success of American Methodism, by so far they are bound to pro- 
test against the late act of the General Conference in the irregular suspension of 
Bishop Andrew, as not only without law, but in direct contravention of legal stipu- 
lations known to be essential to the unity of the Church. And they are thus ex- 
plicit in a statement of facts, that the responsibility of division may attach where in 
justice it belongs. The minority making this Protest, are perfectly satisfied with 
the law of the Church affecting slavery and abolition. They ask no change. They 
need—they seek no indulgence in behalf of the South. Had Bishop Andrew been 
suspended according to law, after due form of trial, they would have submitted with- 
out remonstrance, as the friends of law and order. 

“ They except and protest, further, against the lawless procedure, as they think, in 
the case of Bishop Andrew, because, apart from the injustice done him and the 
South, by the act, other and graver difficulties, necessarily incidental to this moyve- 
ment, come in for a share of attention. ‘The whole subject is, in the very nature 
of things, resolved into a single original question: Will the General Conference 
adhere to, and in good faith assert and maintain, the compromise law of the Church 
on the vexed question dividing us—or will it be found expedient generally, as in the 
case of Bishop Andrew, to lay it aside, and tread it under foot! No question on 
the subject of slavery and abolition can be settled until the General Conference 
shall settle zis beyond the possibility of evasion. In the present crisis, it is the 
opinion of the undersigned, that every bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and 
every member of this General Conference, is especially called upon by all the 
responsibilities of truth and honour to declare himself upon the subject ; and they 
deem it proper, respectfully and urgently, to make such call a part of this Protest. 
When so much depends upon it, can the General Conference, as the organ of the 
supreme authority of the Church, remain silent without incurring the charge of 
trifling both with its interests and reputation? Law always pledges the public faith 
of the body ostensibly governed by it to the faithful assertion and performance of its 
stipulations ; and the compromise law of the Discipline, partaking, as it does, of the 
nature of the law of treaty, and embracing, as has been scen, all possible cases, 
pledges the good faith of every minister and member of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, against saying or doing anything tending to annul the force or thwart the 


72 


purposes of its enactment. The only allowable remedy of those who object to the 
law, is to seek a constitutional change of the law; and in failure, to submit, or else 
retire from the Church. All attempts to resist, evade, or defeat the objects and 
intended application of the law, until duly revoked, must be regarded as unjust and 
revolutionary, because an invasion of well-defined conventional right. And the un- 
dersigned except to the course of the majority in the informal prosecution of Bishop 
Andrew, and the anomalous quasi suspension it inflicts, as not only giving to the 
compromise a construction rendering it entirely ineffective, but as being directly 
subversive of the great bond of union which has held the North and South together 
for the last forty years. Turning to the confederating annual conferences of 1804, 
and the vexed and protracted negotiations which preceded the General Conference 
of that year, and finally resulted in the existing law of the Discipline, regulating the 
whole subject, and glancing at nearly half a million of Methodists, now in the South, 
who have come into the Church with all their hopes and fears, interests and associa- 
tions, their property, character, and influence, reposing in safety upon the publicly- 
pledged faith of the Methodist Episcopal Church, only to be told that this is all a 
dream, that a part of what was pledged was never intended to be allowed ; and that the 
whole is at all times subject to the discretion of a dominant majority, claiming, in 
matter of right, to be without and above law, competent not merely to make all 
rules and regulations for the proper government of the Church, but to govern the 
Church without rule or regulation, and punish and degrade without even the alleged 
infringement of law, or the form of trial, if it be thought expedient, presents a state 
of things filling the undersigned with alarm and dismay. Such views and facts, 
without adducing others, will, perhaps, be sufficient to show the first and principal 
ground occupied by the minority in the Protest. They cannot resist the con- 
viction that the majority have failed to redeem the pledge of public law given to the 
Church and the world by the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

‘2. The undersigned are aware that it is affirmed by some of the majority, but 
meanwhile denied by others, and thus a mooted, unsettled question among them- 
selves, that the resolution censuring and virtually suspending Bishop Andrew, as 
understood by the minority, is mere matter of advice or recommendation ; but so far 
from advising or recommending anything, the language of the resolution, by fair and 
necessary construction, is imperative and mandatory in form, and, unqualified by 
anything in the resolution itself, or in the preamble explaining it, conveys the idea 
plainly and most explicitly, that it is the judgment and will of the Conference that 
Bishop Andrew shall cease to exercise the office of bishop until he shall cease to be 
the owner of slaves. ‘ Resolved, That it is the sense of this conference that he 
desist.’ That is, having rendered himself unacceptable to the majority, it is their 
judgment that he retire from the bench of bishops and their field of action. 

“No idea of request, advice, or recommendation, is conveyed bythe language of 
the preamble or resolution, and the recent avowal of an intention to advise is, in the 
judgment of the undersigned, disowned by the very terms in which, it is said, 
the advice was given. The whole argument of the majority, during a debate of 
tweive days, turned upon the right of the Conference to displace Bishop Andrew 
without resort to formal trial. No one questioned the legal right of the Conference 
to advise; and if this only was intended, why the protracted debate upon the sub- 
ject? But further : a resolution respectfully and affectionately requesting the bishop 
to resign had been laid aside, to entertain the substitute under notice ; a motion, too, 
to declare the resolution advisory was promptly rejected by the majority; and in 
view of all these facts, and the entire proceedings of the majority im the case, the 
undersigned have been compelled to consider the resolution as a mandatory judg- 
ment, to the effect that Bishop Andrew desist from the exercise of his episcopal 
functions. If the majority have been misunderstood, the language of their own resolu- 
tion, and the position they occupied in debate, have led to the misconception ; and 
truth and honour, not less than a most unfortunate use of language, require that they 
explain themselves. 

‘“©3. We except to the act of the majority, because it is assumed that conscience 
and principle are involved, and require the act complained of, as expedient and ne- 
cessary under the circumstances. Bishop Andrew being protected by the law of 
the Church, having cognizance of all offences connected with slavery, such connex- 
ion in his case, in the judgment of all jurisprudence, can only be wrong in the pro- 
portion that the law is bad and defective. It is not conceived ‘by the minority how 


73 


conscience and principle can be brought to bear upon Bishop Andrew, and not upon 
the Jaw and the Church having such law. They are obliged to believe that the law 
and the source from which it emanates must become the object of exception and cen- 
sure before Bishop Andrew, who has not offended against either, unless the Church 
is against the law, can be subjected to trial, at the bar of the conscience and princi- 
ples of men who profess subjection and approval, in the instance both of the law and 
the Church. 

“The undersigned can never consent, while we have a plain law, obviously cover- 
ing an assumed offence, that the offence shall be taken, under plea of principle, out 
of the hands of the law, and be resubjected to the conflicting opinions and passions 
which originally led to a resort to law, as the only safe standard of judgment. They 
do not understand how conscience and principle can attach grave blame to action 
not disapproved by the law—express law too, made and provided in the case—with- 
out extending condemnation to the law itself, and the body from which it proceeds. 
The Church can hardly be supposed to have settled policy and invariable custom, in 
contravention of law; the avowal of such custom and policy, therefore, excluding from 
the episcopacy any and every man, in any way connected with slavery, is mere 
assumption. No contract, agreement, decree, or purpose of this kind, is of record, 
or ever existed. No such exaction, in terms or by implication, was ever made by 
the North, or conceded by the South. No conventional understanding ever existed 
to this effect, so far as the South is concerned, or has been informed. That it has 
long, perhaps always, been the purpose of the North, not to elect a slaveholder to the 
office of bishop, is admitted. But as no law gave countenance to anything of the 
kind, the South regarded it as a mere matter of social injustice, and was not disposed 
tocomplain. The North has always found its security i numbers, and the untram- 
melled right of suffrage, and to this the South has not objected. The assumption, 
however, Is entirely different, and is not admitted by the South, but is plainly nega- 
tived by the law and language of the Discipline, as explained by authority of the 
General Conference. 

‘No such concession, beyond peaceable submission to the right of suffrage, exer- 
cised by the majority, will ever be submitted to by the South, as it would amount to 
denial of equal abstract right, and a disfranchisement of the Southern ministry, and 
could not be submitted to without injury and degradation. If, then, the North is not 
satisfied with the negative right conceded to the South by law in this matter, the 
minority would be glad to know what principle or policy is likely to introduce beyond 
the existing provisions of law. As the contingency which has occasioned the diffi- 
culty in the case of Bishop Andrew, and to which every Southern minister is liable 
at any time, does not, and cannot fall under the condemnation of existing law, and he 
cannot be punished, nor yet subjected to any official disability, without an abuse of 
both right and power, on the part of this General Conference, the minority are com- 
pelled to think that the majority ought to be satisfied with the consciousness and de- 
claration, that they are in no way responsible for the contingency, and thus, at least, 
allow Bishop Andrew the benefit of their own legislation, until they see proper to 
change it. This attempt by the majority to protect a lawless prosecution from 
merited rebuke, by an appeal to conscience and principle, condemning Bishop An- 
drew, while the law and the Church, shielding him from the assault, are not object- 
ed to, is looked upon by the minority as a species of moral, we will not say legal, 
casuistry, utterly subversive of all the principles of order and good government. 

“4. ‘The act of the majority was ostensibly resorted to, because, as alleged, the 
Church in the Middle and Northern conferences will not submit to any, the slightest 
connexion with slavery. But if connexion with slavery is ruinous to the Church in 
the North, that ruin is already wrought. Who does not know that the very Disci- 
pline, laws, and legislation of the Church necessarily connect us all with slavery? 
All our provisional legislation on the subject has proceeded on the assumption that 
slavery is an element of society—a principle of action—a household reality in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church m the United States. It is part and parcel of the 
economy of American Methodism, in every subjective sense. It has given birth to 
law and right, conventional arrangements, numerous missions, and official trusts. 
Every bishop, every minister, every member of the Church is of necessity connected 
with slavery. Each is brother and co-member, both with slave and master, by the 
very laws and organization of the Church. ; R 

“Tf, then, connexion with slavery is so disastrous, the only remedy is to purify 


74 


the Church by reorganization, or get out of it as soon as possible. And would not 
this aversion to slavery—would not conscience and principle, so much plead in this 
controversy—appear much more consistent in every view of the subject, in striking 
at the root of the evil, in the organic structure of the Church, than in seeking its 
personification in Bishop Andrew, protected although he be by the law, and proceed- 
ing to punish him, by way of calling off attention from the known toleration of the 
same thing, in other aspects and relations? 

‘“‘Tmpelled by conscience and principle to the illegal arrest of a bishop, because 
he has incidentally, by bequest, inheritance, and marriage, come into possession of 
slave property, in no instance intending to possess himself of such property, how 
long will conscience and principle leave other ministers, or even lay members, undis- 
turbed, who may happen to be in the same category with Bishop Andrew? Will 
assurances be given that the lawlessness of expediency, controlled, as in such case 
it must be, by prejudice and passion, will extend no further—that there shall be no 
further curtailment of right as it regards the Southern ministry?- Yet what is the 
security of the South in the case? Is the public faith of this body, as instanced in 
the recent violations of the compromise law, to be relied upon as the guarantee for 
the redemption of the pledge? What would such pledge or assurance be but to re- 
mind the South that any departure at all from the great conservative pledge of law, 
to which we appeal, was much more effectually guarded against originally, than it is 
possible to guard against any subsequent infringement, and to make the South feel 
further that disappointment in the first instance must compel distrust with regard to 
the future? The Church having specific law on the subject, all questions involving 
slavery must inevitably, by intention of law, come within the purview of such special 
provision, and cannot be judged of by any other law or standard, without a most dar- 
ing departure from all the rules and sobrieties of judicial procedure, and the under- 
signed accordingly except to the action of the majority in relation to Bishop Andrew, 
as not only without sanction of law, but in conflict with rights created by law. 

**5. As the Methodist Episcopal Church is now organized, and according to its or- 
ganization since 1784, the episcopacy is a co-ordinate branch, the executive depart- 
ment proper of the government. A bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church is not 
a mere creature—is in no prominent sense an officer of the General Conference. 
The General Conference, as such, cannot constitute a bishop. It is true. the annual 
conferences select the bishops of the Church, by the suffrage of their delegates, in 
General Conference assembled; but the General Conference, in its capacity of a 
representative body or any other in which it exists, does not possess the power of 
ordination, without which a bishop cannot be constituted. 

“The bishops are beyond a doubt an integral constituent part of the General Con- 
ference, made such by law and the constitution; and because elected by the General 
Conference, it does not follow that they are subject to the will of that body, except 
in conformity with legal right and the provisions of law, in the premises. In this 
sense, and so viewed, they are subject to the General Conference, and thisis suffi- 
cient limitation of their power, unless the government itself is to be considered irre- 
gular and unbalanced in the co-ordinate relations of its parts. In a sense by no 
means unimportant the General Conference is as much the creature of the episco- 
pacy, as the bishops are the creatures of the General Conference. Constitutionally 
the bishops alone have the right to fix the time of holding the annual conferences, 
and should they refuse or neglect to do so, no annual conference could meet, accord- 
ing to law, and, by consequence, no delegates could be chosen, and no General Con- 
ference could be chosen, or even exist. And because this is so, what would be 
thought of the impertinent pretension, should the episcopacy claim that the General 
Conference is the mere creature of their will? As executive officers as well as pasto- 
ral overseers, the bishops belong to the Church as such, and not to the General Con- 
ference as one of its councils or organs of action merely. 

“The General Conference is in no sense the Church, not even representatively. 
It is merely the representative organ of the Church, with limited powers to do its 
business, in the discharge of a delegated trust. 

‘« Because bishops are in part constituted by the General Conference, the power of 
removal does not follow. Episcopacy even in the Methodist Church is not a mere 
appointment to labour. It is an official consecrated station, under the protection of 
law, and can only be dangerous as the law is bad, or the Church corrupt. ‘The power 
to appoint does not necessarily involve the power to remove ; and when the appoint- 


75 ot 


ing power is derivative, as in the case of the General Conference, the power of re- 
moval does not accrue at all, unless by consent of the co-ordinate branches of the 
government, expressed by law, made and provided in the case. When the legislature 
of a State, to appeal to analogy for illustration, appoints a judge or senator in 
congress, does the judge or senator thereby become the officer or creature of the 
legislature, or is he the officer or senatorial representative of the State, of which the 
legislature is the mere organ? And does the power of removal follow that of appoint- 
ment? The answer is negative, in both cases, and applies equally to the bishops of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, who, instead of being the officers and creatures of 
the General Conference, are de facto the officers and servants of the Church, chosen 
by the General Conference, as its organ of action, and no right of removal accrues, 
except as they fail to accomplish the aims of the Church in their appointment, and 
then only in accordance with the provisions of law. But when a bishop is suspended, 
or informed that it is the wish or will of the General Conference that he cease to 
perform the functions of bishop, for doing what the law of the same body allows him 
to do, and of course without incurring the hazard of punishment, or even blame, then 
the whole procedure becomes an outrage upon justice, as well as law. 

* The assumption of power by the General Conference beyond the warrant of law, 
to which we object, and against which we protest, will lead, if carried into practice, 
to a direct violation of one of the restrictive rules of the constitution. Suppose it 
had been the ‘sense’ of this General Conference, when the late communication from 
the bishops was respectfully submitted to the Conference, that such communication 
was an interference with their rights and duties—an attempt to tamper with the 
purity and independence, and therefore an outrage upon the claims and dignity of the 
Conference not to be borne with. And proceeding a step further, suppose it had 
been the ‘ sense’ of the Conference that they ail desist from performing the functions 
of bishops until the ‘impediment’ of such offence had been removed—assume this, 
(and, so far as mere law is concerned, no law being violated in either ease, it was 
just as likely as the movement against Bishop Andrew,) and had it taken place, what 
had become of the general superintendency? If a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church may, without law, and at the instance of mere party expediency, be sus- 
pended from the exercise of the appropriate functions of his office, for one act, he 
may for another. Admit this doctrine, and by what tenure do the bishops hold office ? 
One thing is certain, whatever other tenure there may be, they do not hold office 
according to law. 

‘“‘ The provisions of law and the faithful performance of duty, upon this theory of 
official tenure, afford no security. Admit this claim of absolutism, as regards right 
and powers on the part of the General Conference, and the bishops of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church are slaves, and the men constituting this body their masters and 
holders. ‘They are in office only at the discretion of a majority of the General Con- 
ference, without the restraints or protection of law. Both the law and themselves 
are liable and likely at any time to be overborne and trampled upon together, as ex- 
emplified in the case of Bishop Andrew. Ifthe doctrine against which we protest 
be admitted, the episcopal office is, at best, but a quadrennial term of service, and 
the undersigned are compelled to think that a man who would remazn a bishop, or 
allow himself to be made one, under such circumstances, ‘ desires a good work,’ and 
is prepared for self-sacrifice, quite beyond the comprehension of ordinary piety. 

‘“‘ As it regards Bishop Andrew, if it shall be made to appear that the action im his 
case was intended only to advise and request him to desist from his office, it does not 
in any way affect the real or relative character of the movement. When a body 
claiming the right to compel, asks the resignation of an officer, the request is to all 
official and moral purposes compulsory, as it loads the officer with disability, and 
gives notice of assumed unworthiness, if not criminality. The request has all the 
force of a mandate, inasmuch as the officer is by such request compelled either to 
resign or remain in office contrary to the known will of the majority. A simple re- 
quest, therefore, under the circumstances supposed, carries with it all the foree of a 
decree, and is so understood, it is believed, by all the world. 

“To request Bishop Andrew to resign, therefore, in view of all the facts and rela- 
tions of the case, was, in the judgment of the minority, to punish and degrade him; 
and they maintain that the whole movement was without authority of law, is hence 
of necessity null and void, and therefore not binding upon Bishop Andrew, or the 
minority protesting against it. 


nad 


76 


“6, We protest against the act of the majority, instructing Bishop Andrew to 
desist from the exercise of his office, not merely on account of the injustice and evil 
connecting with the act itself, but because the act must be understood as the expo- 
nent of principles and purposes, as it regards the union of the North and South in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, well-nigh destroying all hope of its perpetuity. The 
true position of ‘the parties in relation to a long-existing conventional arrangement, 
on the subject of slavery and abolition, has been fully under notice ; and when men 
of years and wisdom, experience and learning—men of no common weight of charac- 
ter, and with a well-eamed aristocracy of Church influence thrown about them, assume 
and declare, in action as well as debate, that what a plain law of the Church—the 
only law applicable in the case—sustained and enforced, too, by an explanatory 
decree of this body, at a previous session—deczdes shall not be a cisqualification for 
office, in any grade in the ministry,—when such men, the law and decision of the 
General Conference notwithstanding, are heard declaring that what law provides for 
and protects nevertheless always has been and always shall be a disqualification, what 
further evidence is wanting to show that the compromise basis of union, from which 
the South has never swerved, has been abandoned both by the Northern and Middle 
Conferences, with a few exceptions in the latter, and that principles and purposes 
are entertained by the majority, driving the South to extreme action, in defence both 
of their rights and reputation? And how far the long train of eventful sequences, 
attendant upon the threatened result of division, may be traceable to the Northern 
and Middle Conferences, by the issue thus provoked, is a question to be settled not 
by us, but by our contemporaries and posterity. 

“Tt is matter of history, with regard to the past, and will not be questioned, that 
now, as formerly, the South is upon the basis of the Discipline, on the subject of 
slavery. The minority believe it equally certain that this is not true with regard to 
the North proper especially. In view, then, of the unity of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, which party has been, in equity, entitled to the sympathy and protection of 
the Middle and wmpire conferences {—those who through good and evil report have kept 
good faith and adhered to law, or those whose opinions and purposes have led them to 
seek a state of things in advance of law, and thus dishonour its forms and sanctions? 

“7. In proportion as the minority appreciate and cling to the unity of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, they are bound, further, to except to the position of the majority, 
in this controversy. Allow that Bishop Andrew, without however any infringement 
of law, 1s, on account of his connexion with slavery, unacceptable in the Northern 
conferences. It is equally known to the majority that any bishop of the Church, 
either violating, or submitting to a violation of the compromise charter of union be- 
tween the North and the South, without proper and public remonstrance, cannot 
be acceptable in the South, and need not appear there. By pressing the issue in 
question, therefore, the majority virtually dissolve the government of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, because m every constitutional aspect it is sundered by so crip- 
pling a co-ordinate branch of it as to destroy the itinerant general superintendency 
altogether. Whenever it is clearly ascertained that the compromise law of the 
Church, regulating slavery and abolition, is abandoned, every bishop, each of the 
venerable and excellent men who now adorn the Church and its councils, ceases to 
be a general superintendent : the law of union, the principle of gravitation, binding 
us together, is dissolved, and the general superintendency cf the Methodist Episcopal 
Church is no more ! 

“8. The South have not been led thus to protest merely because of the treatment 
received by Bishop Andrew, or the kindred action of this body in other matters. The 
abandonment of the compromise—the official refusal by the majority, as we have 
understood them, to abide the arbitrament of law—is their principal ground of com- 
plaint and remonstrance. Ifthe minority have not entirely misunderstood the ma- 
jority, the abolition and anti-slavery principles of the North will no longer allow 
them to submit to the law of the Discipline on the general subject of slavery and 
abolition ; and if this be so, if the compromise law be either repealed or allowed to 
remain a dead letter, the South cannot submit, and the absolute necessity of division is 
already dated. And should the exigent circumstances in which the minority find 
themselves placed, by the facts and developments alluded to in this remonstrance, 
render it finally necessary that the Southern conferences should have a separate, inde- 
pendent existence, it is hoped that the character and services of the minority, to- 
gether with the numbers and claims of the ministry and membership of the portion 


77 


of the Church represented by them, not less than similar reasons and considerations 
on the part of the Northern and Middle conferences, will suggest the high moral 
fitness of meeting this great emergency with strong and steady purpose to do justice 
to all concerned. And it is believed that, approaching the subject in this way, it 
will be found practicable to devise and adopt such measures and arrangements, pre- 
sent and prospective, as will secure an amicable division of the Church upon the 
broad principles of right and equity, and destined to result in the common good 
of the great body of ministers and members found on either side the line of sepa- 
ration.” 


Mr. Woop,—There was a reply to that Protest, which I suppose is properly our 
evidence, but I think there is great propriety in having them read together ; and the 
court will then have the whole ecclesiastical argument before it. 


Mr. Lorp,—I will agree to that; but there is a short letter which was presented 
to the Conference from Dr. Bascom, which I will read first in this connexion. 


Jupcr Netson,—I think the counsel on the part of the plaintiffs had better go on, 
without mixing up the case on the other side with that on which he means to rely. 


Mr. Lorp,—This would not be so mixing it up, may it please your Honours. 
This paper will tend to show how things then stood at that Conference, and perhaps it 
is just that it should now be read—it certainly will be convenient—that your Honours 
may see the feeling which prevailed on both sides before the separation was effected. 


Jupex Netson,—We do not object. 


Mr. Lorpv,—lIf your Honours please, I will first read Dr. Bascom’s letter :— 


“¢ Rev. Bishops Soule, Hedding, Waugh, and Morris : 

“<¢My Dear Breturen,—That part of the Protest, presented to the General 
Conference yesterday, which relates to the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church maintaining the compromise law of the Discipline, on the subject of slavery 
and abolition, was intended as the declaration of a principle, to which it is the purpose 
of the South to adhere ; but was not intended to convey the idea, that any member 
of the existing bench of bishops was in any way delinquent with regard to the law of 
the Church in question. If any such impression has been made, in any quarter, it is 
deeply regretted. It is the opinion of the writers and signers of the Protest alluded 
to, that the bishops addressed in this communication have, at different times, and in 
different forms, sufficiently declared themselves on the subject under notice ; and so 
far from intending to impugn the bishops in any way, the minority signing the Pro- 
test are ready at all times to endorse the purity and impartiality with which they have 
maintained and enforced the law and doctrme of the Church, on the subject of 
slavery and abolition. 

“««In behalf of the Southern delegations signing the Protest, very truly and re- 


spectfully, H. B. Bascom. 
“© ¢ New-York, June 7, 1844.’” 


The Rev. Dr. Peck then read the following, at the request of Mr. Fancher :— 


“REPLY TO THE PROTEST, 


“ Report of the Committee appointed to prepare a Statement of the Facts connected with 
the Proceedings in the Case of Bishop Andrew. 

“The committee appointed to prepare a statement of the facts in the case of 
Bishop Andrew, and to examine the Protest of the minority, regret that the circum- 
stances under which they have been compelled to act have prevented their preparing 
so complete a report as the importance of the subject demands. The Protest was 
not placed under their command until Friday afternoon, and immediately afterward 
two of the original committee had to withdraw, one of them being ill, and the other 


78 


having been elected bishop ; nor were their places supplied until Saturday evening. 
It is under these disadvantages, and amid the pressure of important Conference busi- 
ness, that they have been required to prepare a document in relation to some of the 
most important questions that have ever engaged the attention of the Church. It is 
believed, however, that the following statement of Jaw and facts will be a sufficient 
notice of the Protest which has been referred to them. 

«* As the proceedings of the General Conference in the case of Bishop Andrew 
were not judicial, its decision has gone forth to the public unaccompanied by the 
reasons and facts upon which this action was founded. ‘This deficiency is but par- 
tially supplied by the published reports of the debate on the subject. The speakers 
who advocated the resolution were restrained by a praiseworthy delicacy from all 
avoidable allusions which might give pain to the respected individual concemed, or 
awaken unpleasant emotions in any quarter. It is but natural that, under these 
circumstances, some misunderstanding should prevail as to the merits of the case. 
The following statement, it is believed, contains nothing, at least so far as facts are 
concerned, which will not be cheerfully confirmed by all parties, and will throw light 
upon the true position of the authors of the Protest. 

‘From the first institution of the episcopacy of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
no slaveholder has been elected té that dignity, though, in several instances, candi- 
dates, otherwise eminently fitted for the station, have failed of success solely on 
account of this impediment. Since the period referred to, nine bishops have been 
elected, who were natives of the United States. Of these only three have been 
Northern men, while six were natives of slaveholding States. Not one, however, 
was a slaveholder ; a remarkable fact, which shows very clearly, that while much 
more than their just claim has been conceded to the slaveholding portions of the 
Church, a decided and uniform repugnance has, from the first, been felt and mani- 
fested to the occupancy of that high office by a slaveholder. 

“Tt is known and acknowledged by all Southern brethren, that Bishop Andrew 
was nominated by the delegates from the South Carolina and Georgia Conferences, 
as a Southern candidate for whom Northern men might vote, without doing violence 
to their principles, as he was no slaveholder. Bishop Andrew himself perfectly un- 
derstood the ground of his election, and often said that he was indebted to his poverty 
for his promotion. Since the year 1832, the anti-slavery sentiment in the Church, as 
well as in the whole civilized world, has constantly and rapidly gained ground ; and 
within the last year or two it has been roused to a special and most earnest opposi- 
tion to the introduction of a slaveholder into the episcopal office—an event which 
many were led to fear, by certain intimations published in the Southern Christian 
Advocate, the Richmond Christian Advocate, and perhaps some other Methodist 
periodicals. This opposition produced the profoundest anxiety through most of the 
non-slayeholding conferences. The subject was discussed everywhere, and the 
dreaded event universally deprecated as the most fearful calamity that ever threat- 
ened the Church. Many conferences instructed their delegates to use all possible 
means to avert such an evil. Other conferences, and many thousand laymen, sent 
up petitions and memorials to the same effect to the present General Conference. 
Such was the state of sentiment and of apprehension in the Northern portion of the 
Church, when the delegates to the General Conference learned, on reaching this 
city, that Bishop Andrew had become a slaveholder. The profound grief, the utter 
dismay, which was produced by this astounding intelligence, can be fully appreciated 
only by those who have participated in the distressing scenes which have since been 
enacted in the General Conference. 

‘When the first emotions of surprise and sorrow had so far subsided as to allow 
of sober thought and inquiry, it was ascertained that Bishop Andrew had been a 
slaveholder for several years. Soon after his election to the episcopacy, a lady of 
Augusta bequeathed him a female slave, on condition that she should be sent to 
Liberia at nineteen years of age, if her consent to emigrate could be obtained— 
otherwise she was to be made as free as the laws of Georgia would permit. She 
refused to emigrate, has since married, and is now enjoying all the privileges pro- 
vided for in the will of her former mistress :—she is, and must be, a slave—she and 
her children—and liable to all that may befall slaves. Another slave Bishop An- 
drew has inherited from the mother of his former wife, and by his recent marriage 
he has become the owner of (it was said on the floor of the General Conference) 
fourteen or fifteen more. These belonged to Mrs. Andrew in her own right before 


79 


her marriage. That act, according to the laws of Georgia, made them the property 
of Bishop Andrew, to keep or dispose of as he pleased. He conveyed them toa 
trustee, for the joint use of himself and wife, of whom the survivor is to be the sole 
owner. This conveyance was made for the security of Mrs. Andrew, and with no 
view either to satisfy or to mislead the opinions of the Northern Church. So much, 
at least, Bishop Andrew was understood to say to the Conference. His known in- 
tegrity forbids the suspicion that he would attempt to disguise the real character of 
the transaction ; and the fact that the earnings of the slaves, as well as the rever- 
sionary title to them, are his, demonstrates that this arrangement was not made with 
any view to satisfy the well-known sentiments of the Church against a slaveholding 
bishop. It is manifest from this statement, which is believed to be strictly correct, 
that Bishop Andrew’s connexion with slavery is not, as the Protest intimates, 
merely an “assumption,”’ but that he is the owner of slaves, in the full and proper 
sense of that term. His title was acquired by bequest, by inheritance, and by mar- 
riage, which are by far the most common grounds of ownership in slaves. All the 
usual and necessary conditions of slavery have their fulfilment in the relation of these 
persons to Bishop Andrew. Their labour and their earnings are subject to his con- 
trol, and inure to his benefit and that of his family. They are now liable, or they may 
be hereafter, to be sold ; they and their offspring are doomed, as the case now stands, 
to a bondage that is perpetual, and they are liable and likely to descend to his heirs. 
Beyond all reasonable doubt, the condition of Bishop Andrew’s slaves will be 
attended, while he lives, with all the alleviations—and these are many and great— 
which a very benevolent and Christian master can provide. Still it must be slavery. 
In the view of the law of the land, and of the law of the Discipline, in all its more 
weighty and permanent consequences to the bondman, it is and must be slavery. It 
was said repeatedly on the floor of the Conference, that the deed of trust had put it 
quite beyond Bishop Andrew’s power to free his slaves, even if there were no other 
obstacle. So then, should the stringent laws of Georgia against emancipation be 
relaxed or repealed by her next legislature, the rule of the Discipline, which would 
then become imperative on Bishop Andrew, could not, and would not, be satisfied, 
and the Church must still have a slaveholding bishop, in spite, not only of its known 
will, but of its standing laws. 

“Tt was the almost unanimous opinion of the delegates from the non-slaveholding 
conferences that Bishop Andrew could not continue to exercise his episcopal func- 
tions under existing circumstances, without producing results extensively disastrous 
to the Church in the North; and from this opinion the brethren of the South did not 
dissent. For a while the hope was entertained that the difficulty would be quietly 
removed by his resigning his office, which it was known he had previously desired 
to do. But this hope was dissipated by the intelligence that the delegates from the 
conferences in the slaveholding States had been convened, and that they had unani- 
mously advised him not to resign. Various efforts were then made in private to 
devise some method to relieve the case, but they all proved abortive, and no- 
thing remained but that it must come before the General Conference. The bishops 
themselves, in their united Address to the Conference, had urged it to ascertain whe- 
ther there has been any departure from the essential principles ‘ of the general itin- 
erant superintendency,’ and had declared of that superintendency that ‘the plan of 
its operation is general, embracing the whole work i connextonal order, and not 
diocesan or sectional. Consequently any division of the work into districts, or other- 
wise, so as to create a particular charge, with any other view, or in any order, than 
as a prudential measure to secure to all the conferences the annual visits of the 
superintendents, would be an innovation on the system’—that ‘ our superintendency 
must be itinerant, and not local :'—that ‘it was wisely provided in the system of 
Methodism, from its very foundation, that it should be the duty of superintendents 
‘ to travel through the Connexion at large. The question then presented itself, how 
the case of Bishop Andrew could be so disposed of as to preserve this itinerant ge- 
neral superintendency? If the General Conference had even been disposed to evade 
it, the consideration of it was forced upon them by the episcopal Address itself. 

“« A diversity of sentiment existed as to the proper method of treating the case. 

‘Some, at least, believed—perhaps few doubted—that sufficient ground existed 
for impeachment on a charge of ‘ improper conduct’ under the express provisions of 
the Discipline. The opinion was certainly entertained in several quarters that it was 
‘improper’ for the shepherd and bishop of eleven hundred thousand souls, either 


80 


deliberately or heedlessly, to place himself in direct and irreconcilable conflict with 
the known and cherished moral sentiments of a large majority of his vast flock. 
Such, however, was the prevalence of moderate counsels, that no proposal was made 
either to impeach or punish, and such the controlling influence of forbearance and 
kindness, that it is believed not one word was uttered during the entire debate of 
nearly a fortnight derogatory to the character, or justly offensive to the feelings of 
Bishop Andrew. The transaction which had brought such distress upon the Church, 
and threatened such extensive ruin, was dealt with merely as a fact—as a practical 
difficulty—for the removal or palliation of which it was the duty of the General Con- 
ference to provide. It was in this spirit, and for such ends, that the following 
preamble and resolution were passed :— 

<¢ Whereas, the Discipline of our Church forbids the doing anything calculated to 
destroy our itinerant general superintendency, and whereas Bishop Andrew has be- 
come connected with slavery by marriage and otherwise, and this act having drawn 
after it circumstances which in the estimation of the General Conference will greatly 
embarrass the exercise of his office as an itinerant general superintendent, if not in 
some places entirely prevent it ; therefore, 

««¢ Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that he desist from 
the exercise of this office so long as this impediment remains. 


“¢J, B. Finvey, 
J. M. Trimsue.’ 


“The action of the General Conference was neither judicial nor punitive. It 
neither achieves nor intends a deposition, nor so much as a legal suspension. 
Bishop Andrew is still a bishop ; and should he, against the expressed sense of the 
General Conference, proceed in the discharge of his functions, his official acts would 
be valid. 

“Such are the facts in the case of Bishop Andrew. We now proceed to notice 
the law. Nearly all the objections raised in the Protest against the action of the 
General Conference may be reduced to two, viz. :—that that body has violated the 
constitutional and the statutory law of the Church. ‘That it has violated the consti- 
tutional law the Protest attempts to prove by representing its late action as a breach 
of what it calls ‘the compromise law of the Church on the subject of slavery ;’ 
meaning, as is supposed, the section on slavery, particularly that paragraph which 
relates to travelling preachers. The entire language on this subject is evidently 
formed so as to make the impression on any reader not intimately acquainted with 
the history and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, that there has been 
some period (whether 1804 or 1816 does not clearly appear from the Protest) when 
the question of slavery was settled in the Methodist Episcopal Church as it was in 
the General Government at the adoption of the federal constitution,—that ‘ the con- 
federating annual conferences,’ ‘after a vexed and protracted negotiation,’ met in 
convention, and the section on slavery ‘ was finally agreed to by the parties, after a 
long and fearful struggle,’ as ‘a compact,’ ‘a treaty,’ which cannot be altered 
by the General Conference until certain constitutional restrictions are removed. 
So that now any interference on the part of that body with the question of slavery 
in the Southern Conferences is as unconstitutional as it is admitted would be the 
interference of the General Government with the question in the Southern States. 

“¢ After the boldness with which this doctrine is advanced, and the confidence with 
which it is relied upon as ‘the first and principal ground occupied by the minority 
in this Protest,’ it will be difficult for the uninitiated to believe, that it is as un- 
founded in fact as it is ingenious in its ‘ legal casuistry.’ It is indeed true, that the 
question of slavery had been long and anxiously agitated in the Church, and the 
various General Conferences had endeavoured to adjust the matter so as to promote 
the greatest good of all parties ; but this very fact goes to disprove the position as- 
sumed in the Protest: for as the attention of the Church had been thus strongly 
called to the subject, if it had been the intention to guard the question of slavery by 
constitutional provisions, it would have been done when the Church actually did 
meet to frame a constitution. But nothing of the kind appears. For when, in 1808, 
it was resolved that the General Conference, instead of consisting, as before, of all 
the travelling elders, should be a delegated body, and when it was determined that 
that body (unlike the General Government, which had no powers but such asare ex- 
pressly conferred) should have all powers but such as are expressly taken away,— 


81 


when this vast authority was about to be given to the General Conference, among 
‘ the limitations and restrictions’ imposed, there is not one word on the subject of sla- 
very ; nor was any attempt made to introduce any such restriction. 'The only pro- 
vision anywhere established by that General Conference of constitutional force, was 
the general rule forbidding the buying and selling of human beings with an intention 
to enslave them. So that, in direct opposition to the assertion of the Protest, we 
maintain that the section on slavery is ‘a mere legislative enactment, a simple de- 
cree of a General Conference,” as much under its control as any other portion of the 
Discipline not covered by the restrictive rules. If additional proof of the truth of 
this position were needed it might be adduced in the fact that that section which the 
Protest represents to have been settled in 1804, was not only altered at the General 
Conference or convention of 1808, but also at the delegated General Conferences of 
1812, 1816, 1820, and 1824. And although the Protest speaks of it as ‘usually 
known’ by the name of ‘the compromise act,’ the greater part of this General Con- 
ference have never heard either that appellation or that character ascribed to it until 
the present occasion. 

“ But although this General Conference cannot admit that any portion of the sec- 
tion on slavery is constitutional in its character, and therefore could not under any 
circumstances allow the imputation of the Protest that they have violated the con- 
stitution of the Church, yet they do admit that it is Jaw—law too which the General 
Conference (though possessing full powers in the premises) has never altered ex- 
cept at the above periods, and then, im each instance, for the further indulgence of 
the South. The question then comes up, whether this General Conference, as the 
Protest maintains, has in effect suddenly reversed the legislation of the Church, not 
indeed by altering the law, but by practically disregarding it. The portion of the 
law particularly in question is the following paragraph :— 

‘««¢ When any travelling preacher becomes an owner of a slave or slaves, by any 
means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character in our Church, unless he execute, if 
it be practicable, a legal emancipation of such slaves, conformably to the laws of the 
State in which he lives.’ 

“This it is alleged fully covers the case of Bishop Andrew, and therefore he ought 
to have been left in the quiet and unquestionable enjoyment of his rights. Were it 
even true, that proceedings, either judicial or ‘ extra-judicial,’ have been had in his 
case, we should not hesitate to join issue here, and maintain that this law does not 
protect him. The Protest asks, ‘Is there anything in the law or its reasons creating 
an exception in the instance of bishops?’ We answer, There is in both. So far as 
judicial proceedings are concerned, the Discipline divides the Church into four 
classes—private members, local preachers, travelling preachers, and bishops; and 
establishes distinct tribunals, and different degrees of responsibility for each. The 
section on slavery applies only to officers of the Church, and therefore private mem- 
bers are not named at all, but special provision is made in the case of local and 
travelling preachers. How happens it that bishops are not named at all? Are they 
necessarily included in the title ‘ travelling preachers?’ In common parlance they 
may sometimes be thus designated, but in the Discipline it is not so understood, even 
in regard to matters much Jess important than this, in evidence of which we need 
only advert to the fact, that the General Conference of 1836 did not consider that 
the allowance of bishops was provided for under the general title of ‘travelling preach- 
ers,’ and they therefore inserted them accordingly. To explain why no mention is 
made of ‘bishops,’ it is not necessary, as the Protest supposes, ‘ to slander the vir- 
tuous dead of the North,’ as if they excluded them intentionally ‘by a resort to 
deceptive and dishonourable means.’ It is a much more natural and reasonable ex- 
planation, that at that day, when the Church could hardly tolerate slavery in any 
class of the ministry, ‘the virtuous dead’ both of the North and of the South did 
not dream that it would ever find its way into the episcopacy. 

“But though the language of the law does not include bishops, yet if the 
‘reason’ and spirit of it did, we might be disposed to allow them the benefit of it. 
But this is not the case. The whole tenor of the Discipline of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church is adverse to slavery. Even the Protest has admitted (irreconcilable 
as the admission is with another portion of the same instrument) that, at the time of 
the alleged ‘compact,’ ‘the whole Church by common consent united in proper 
effort for the. mitigation and final removal of the evil of slavery.’ But let the Disci- 
pline speak for itself. The mildest form in which the question at the head of the 


6 


82 


section on slavery has ever been expressed, is the present, namely, ‘ What shall be 
done for the extirpation of the evil of slavery 1? And the very Conference of 1804, 
which enacted the so-called ‘compromise law,’ as well as that of 1800, when the 
paragraph relating to travelling preachers was really adopted, were each convened 
under a request from the preceding General Conference, that the whole Church 
would aid that body in obtaining ‘ full light in order to take further steps toward the 
eradicating this enormous evil from that part of the Church of God to which they are 
united.’ It is obvious, therefore, that connexion with slavery is tolerated no further 
than seems necessary. In the case of ordinary travelling preachers, there appeared 
to be a necessity for some indulgence. ‘They might become owners of slaves in the 
providence of God ; the laws of the States might not allow emancipation ; and they 
had no power to choose their own place of residence. But no such ‘reason’ could 
apply to a bishop, for he has always been allowed to live where he pleases. Again: 
travelling preachers encumbered with slaves labour among people similarly situ- 
ated, and who would, not, therefore, be likely to object to them on that account. 
But a bishop, by the constitution of the Church, is required to labour in every part 
of the Connexion ; and in by far the larger portion of it the services of a slaveholding 
bishop would not be acceptable. So here again the ‘reason’ of the case does not 
apply to a bishop. There is not, therefore, as the Protest so roundly asserts, any 
express’ or ‘specific law’ in the case ; and therefore, as the Protest itself admits, 
‘in the absence of law it might be competent for the General Conference to act on 
other grounds.’ With the failure to prove any ‘specific law’ authorizing a bishop to 
hold slave property, the third and fourth arguments of the Protest, which are founded 
on this assumption, fail also. 

«But, perhaps, it is not so much the law of the Discipline which the Protest claims 
to cover Bishop Andrew, as the law of the land. For it declares, ‘ The rights of the 
legal owners of slaves in all the slaveholding States are guaranteed by the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, and by the local constitutions of the States respectively, 
as the supreme law of the land, to which every minister and member of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, within the limits of the United States government, professes 
subjection, and pledges himself to submit as an article of the Christian faith, in the 
common creed of the Church.’ If by this is meant that the law of the land allows 
citizens to hold slaves, it is admitted. But so also it allows them to keep theatres 
and grog-shops, so that this is no ground of argument. But if it mean that the law 
of the land requires citizens to keep slaves, (the only mterpretation which can make 
the argument available,) it is denied. And until it can be shown that the-Methodist 
Episcopal Church by its action, legislative, judicial, or executive, requires any 
citizen to do what the law of the land requires him not to do, it is unjust to attempt 
to get up popular clamor against it, as if It came in conflict with the civil authority. 

“This course of reasoning has been pursued thus far, not so much because it was 
deemed necessary for the vindication of the Conference, as to avoid sanctioning, by 
silence, the erroneous exposition which the Protest presents of the constitution and 
the law of the Church. For it has been already seen that Bishop Andrew has been 
subjected to no trial, and no penalty has been inflicted. At present, it is plain that 
the Conference has done nothing to depose, or even suspend Bishop Andrew. His 
name will appear in official publications with those of the other bishops, and with 
them he will derive his support from the funds of the Church. In order to make 
out that the General Conference had no right to take such action as they have in 
Bishop Andrew’s case, the authors of the Protest have been driven to the necessity 
of claiming for the Methodist episcopacy powers and prerogatives never advanced 
before, except by those who wished to make it odious, and which have always been 
repudiated by its chosen champions. The Protest maintains that ‘the episcopacy is 
a co-ordinate branch of the government ;’ for which no argument is adduced save 
this—that it is, in general, the province of bishops to ordain bishops. A. sufficient 
answer to which may be found in the principle of Methodist polity, stated in the Ad- 
dress of the Bishops to the present General Conference, that orders (the principle 
applies to bishops, though not expressly named, as well as to elders and deacons) are 
‘conferred’ by the election, and only ‘ confirmed’ by the ordination; and that when 
the election has been made, the bishop ‘has no discretional authority ; but is under 
obligation to ordain the person elected, whatever may be his own judgment of his 
qualifications.” And if all the bishops should refuse to ordain the person elected by 
the General Conference, that body would unquestionably have the right to appoint 

6* . 


83 


any three elders to ordain him, as is provided ‘in case there be no bishop remaining 
in our Church.’ The Protest declares, that ‘the bishops are, beyond doubt, an in- 
tegral, constituent part of the General Conference, made such by law and the con- 
stitution.’ If the words ‘General Conference’ be not a mere clerical error, the 
assertion is sufficiently refuted by the answer in the Discipline to the question, ‘ Who 
shall compose the General Conference?’ and by the practice of the bishops them- 
selves, who disclaim a right to give even a casting vote, or even to speak in General 
Conference, except by permission. The Protest maintains that, ‘in a sense by no 
means unimportant, the General Conference is as much the creature of the epis- 
copacy, as the bishops are the creatures of the General Conference.’ The proof 
adduced for which is, that ‘ constitutionally the bishops alone have the right to fix 
the time of holding the annual conferences ; and should they refuse, or neglect to do 
so, no annual conference could meet according to law ; and, by consequence, no dele- 
gates could be chosen, and no General Conference could be chosen, or even exist.’ 
That is to say, because, for the convenience of the bishops in performing their tour, 
they are allowed to say at what time in the year an annual conference shall meet, 
therefore they have the power to prevent such body from meeting at all, though, 
from its very name, it must meet once a year !—that, by preventing the meeting of 
annual conferences, they might prevent the organization of any General Conference ; 
and thus, escaping ali accountability for their delinquencies, might continue to lord 
it over God’s heritage, until themselves and the Church should die a natural death. 
We can easily perceive, were this reasoning legitimate, that the bishops might de- 
stroy, not only the General Conference, but the Church ; but are at a loss to discover 
how it proves that they can create either. We must protest against having any argu- 
ment of ours adduced as analogous to this. 

“The Protest maintains that ‘the General Conference has no right, power, or 
authority, ministerial, judicial, or administrative,’ in any way to subject a bishop ‘to 
any official disability whatever, without the formal presentation of a charge or 
charges, alleging that the bishop to be dealt with has been guilty of the violation of 
some law, or at least some disciplinary obligation of the Church, and also upon con- 
viction of such charge, after due form of trial.” To those who are not familiar with 
the Methodist economy, this might seem plausible. But it is, in reality, an attempt 
to except, from the action of a general system, those who, least of all, ought to be 
excepted. The cardinal feature of our polity is the itinerancy. 

‘To sustain this system, it is essential that the classes should receive the leaders 
that are appointed by the preacher, that the societies should receive the preachers 
that are stationed over them by the bishops, that the annual conferences should 
receive the bishops that are sent to them by the General Conference. Unless, there- 
fore, the utmost care be taken by those who have authority in the premises, that 
these parties shall severally be acceptable to those among whom they labour, there is 
great danger that those who are injured by such neglect may seek redress by revo- 
lutionary measures. For this reason the officers of the Methodist Church are 
subjected regularly to an examination unknown, it is believed, among other denomi- 
nations. Not only is provision made for formal trials, in cases of crimes and misde- 
meanors, but there is a special arrangement for the correction of other obstructions 
to official usefulness. At every annual conference the character of every travelling 
preacher is examined ; at every General Conference that of every bishop. And the 
object is to ascertain not merely whether there is ground for the formal presentation 
of charges, with a view to a regular trial ; but whether there is ‘any objection’— 
anything that might interfere with the acceptance of the officer in question among 
his charge. And it is doctrine novel and dangerous in the Methodist Church, that 
such difficulties cannot be corrected, unless the person objected to be formally 
arraigned under some specific law, to be found in the concise code of the Discipline 
—doctrine not the less dangerous, because it is applied where ‘ objections,’ unimpor- 
tant in others, might be productive of the most disastrous consequences. Will the 
Methodist Church sanction the doctrine, that while all its other officers, of whatever 
name or degree, are subjected to a sleepless supervision,—are counselled, admonished, 
or changed, ‘ as necessity may require, and as the Discipline directs,’—a bishop, who 
decides all questions of law in annual conferences ; who, of his mere motion and will, 
controls the work and the destiny of four thousand ministers; who appoints and 
changes at pleasure the spiritual guides of four millions of souls—that the depositary 
of these vast powers, whose slightest indiscretions or omissions are likely to disturb 


84 


the harmony and even impair the efficiency of our mighty system of operations, en- 
joys a virtual impunity for all delinquencies or misdoings not strictly criminal ? 

‘Tt is believed that an attempt to establish such an episcopal supremacy would 
fill not only a part, but the whole of the Church ‘with alarm and dismay.’ But this 
doctrine is not more at variance with the genius of Methodism than it is with the ex- 
press language of the Discipline, and the exposition of it by all our standard writers. 
The constitution of the Church provides that ‘the General Conference shall have full 
powers to make rules and regulations for our Church,’ under six ‘ limitations and 
restrictions,’ among which the only one relating to the episcopacy is this: ‘They 
shall not change or alter any part, or rule of our government, so as to do away epis- 
copacy, or destroy the plan of our itinerant general superintendency.’ As there is 
nothing in the restrictive rules to limit the full powers of the General Conference in 
the premises, so is there nothing in the special provision respecting the responsibility 
ofa bishop. In reply to the question, ‘To whom is a bishop amenable for his con- 
duct ?’ the Discipline declares, ‘‘To the General Conference, who have power to ex- 
pel him for improper conduct, if they see it necessary.’ And this, be it remembered, 
is all that is said respecting the jurisdiction over a bishop, with the exception of a 
rule for his trial, in the interval of a General Conference, if he be guilty of immo- 
rality. In full accordance with the plain meaning of these provisions is the language 
of all the standard writers on Methodist polity. 

“‘ Bishop Emory—a man of whom it is no injustice to the living or the dead to say, 
that he was a chief ornament and light of our episcopacy; that he brought to the in- 
vestigation of all ecclesiastical subjects a cool, sagacious, powerful, practical intel- 
lect—fully sustains the positions we have assumed in behalf of the powers of the 
General Conference over the bishops of our Church. He gives an unqualified assent 
to the following passages from the notes to the Discipline, prepared by Bishops 
Asbury and Coke, at the request of the General Conference: ‘They (our bishops) are 
entirely dependent on the General Conference :’ ‘ their power, their usefulness, them- 
selves, are entirely at the mercy of the General Conference.’ 

‘« Dr. Emory also quotes some passages from a pamphlet, by the Rev. John Dickens, 
which, he says, was published by the unanimous request of the Philadelphia Con- 
ference, and may be considered as expressing the views both of that conference and 
of Bishop Asbury, his intimate friend. Mr. Dickens affirms, that the bishops derive 
their power from the election of the General Conference, and not from their ordina- 
tion; and that the Conference has, on that ground, power to remove Bishop Asbury, 
and appoint another, ‘if they see it necessary.’ He affirms that Bishop Asbury ‘ de- 
rived his official power from the Conference, and therefore his office is at their dis- 
posal ;—Mr. Asbury was ‘responsible to the General Conference, who had power to 
remove him, if they saw it necessary ;’ ‘he is liable every year to be removed.’ 

“The above quotations show very clearly the sentiments of Asbury, and Coke, 
and Dickens on this question—men chiefly instrumental in laying the foundations of 
our polity. : A 

« Equally clear and satisfactory is the testimony of another venerable bishop, who 
still lives, in the full exercise of his mental powers and benignant influence, to suide 
and bless the Church,—‘'The superintendents now have no power inthe Church 
above that of elders, except what is connected with presiding in the Conference, fix- 
ing the appointments of the preachers, and ordaining :’'—‘ They are the servants of 
the elders, and go out and execute their commands :’—‘ The General Conference 
may expel a bishop not only for immoral, but for ‘‘ improper conduct,” which means 
a small offence below a crime; for which not even a Child or a slave can be expelled 
but after repeated admonitions :’—‘'The travelling preachers gave the bishop his 
power, they continue it in his hands, and they can reduce, limit, or transfer it to 
other hands, whenever they see cause.’ Such is the language of Bishop Hedding, 
who only concurs in the moderate, truly Methodistic views of Bishops Asbury, Coke, 
and Emory. : 

“Jt is believed that this statement of the facts and the law in the case, will afford 
a satisfactory answer to all the positions and reasonings of the Protest; and, after 
having thus presented it, the majority are perfectly willing to abide ‘the decision of 
our contemporaries, and of posterity,’ They cannot, however, close these remarks, 
without expressing their regret that the minority, not content with protesting against 
the action of the General Conference, as ‘lawless,’ as ‘without law, and contrary to 
law,’ as such ‘a violation of the compromise law’ that ‘the public faith of this body 


85 


can no longer be relied upon as the guarantee for the redemption of the pledge, 
‘that there shall be no further curtailment of right as regards the Southern ministry,’ 
—that, not content with thus harshly assailing the proceedings of the General Con- 
ference, they have even refused to the bishops, whom they have invested with such 
exalted prerogatives, the quiet possession of their thoughts and feelings, but have 
thrown out the significant intimation, ‘that any bishop of the Church, either violating, 
or submitting to the violation of the compromise charter of union between the North 
and South, without proper and public remonstrance, cannot be acceptable in the 
South, and need not appear there.’ We shall be slow to believe, that even their con- 
stituents will justify them in thus virtually deposing, not one bishop only, but seve- 
ral, by a process which is even worse than ‘extra-judicial.’ 

“When all the law, and the facts in the case, shall have been spread before an 
impartial community, the majority have no doubt that they will fix ‘ the responsibi- 
laity of division,’ should such an unhappy event take place, ‘ where in justice it be- 
longs.’ 'They will ask, Who first introduced slavery into the episcopacy? And the 
answer will be, Not the General Conference. Who opposed the attempt to withdraw 
it from the episcopacy? Not the General Conference. Who resisted the measure of 
peace that was proposed—the mildest that the case allowed? Not the majority. 
Who first sounded the knell of division, and declared that it would be impossible 
longer to remain under the jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church? Not the 
majority. 

“The proposition for a peaceful separation, (if any must take place,) with which 
the Protest closes, though strangely at variance with much that precedes, has already 
been met by the General Conference. And the readiness with which that body (by 
a vote which would doubtless have been unanimous but for the belief which some 
entertained of the unconstitutionality of the measure) granted all that the Southern 
brethren themselves could ask, in such an event, must forever stand as a practical 
refutation of any assertion that the minority have been subjected to the tyranny of a 
majority. 

“ Finally, we cannot but hope that the minority, after reviewing the entire action 
of the Conference, will find that, both in their Declaration and their Protest, they 
have taken too strong a view of the case; and that, by presenting it in its true light 
before their people, they may be able to check any feelings of discord that may have 
arisen, so that the Methodist Episcopal Church may stil] contmue as one body, en- 
gaged in its proper work of ‘spreading Scriptural holiness over these lands.’ 

“J. P. Durpin, Chairman. 
Gero. Peck, 
Cuas. Exuiorr.” 


Mr. Lorp,—I will now give your Honours the dates of these papers, as they may 
be worthy of noting :— 

The “ Declaration,” your Honours will find to have been put in on the 5th of 
June, 1844. The date of the passage of Mr. Finley’s resolution was the Ist of June. 
The committee of nine to consider a plan of separation, was appointed on the 5th of 
June. The Protest was brought in on the 6th of June, and the Reply on the 10th 
of the same month. I propose also to give the date of some other papers that I shall 
presently read. ‘The election of two bishops—Bishops Hamline and Janes—took 
place on the 7th of June.—Page 128 of Journal of the General Conference of 1844. 

I will now proceed to read from page 123 of the first of the Proofs :— 


“Tuurspay, Junge 6.—Bishop Soule presented the following communication :— 
“<< To the General Conference. 


“ «Rev. anp Dear Breruren,—As the case of Bishop Andrew unavoidably in- 
volves the future action of the superintendents, which, in their judgment, in the pre- 
sent position of the bishop, they have no discretion to deeide upon; they respectfully 
request of this General Conference official instruction, in answer to the following 
questions :— 

“¢]. Shall Bishop Andrew’s name remain as it now stands in the Minutes, Hymn 
Book, and Discipline, or shall it be struck off of these official records ? 


86 


‘«« ¢2. How shall the bishop obtain his support? As provided for in the form 
of Discipline, or in some other way ? 
‘¢ «3. What work, if any, may the bishop perform ; and how shall he be appointed 
to the work? 
“ ¢ Josnua Sous, 
Exisan Heppine, 
Brverty Waveu, 
Tuomas A. Morris.’ 


“J. T. Mitchell offered the following resolutions, in reply to the several inquiries 
of the superintendents :— 

“ «1. Resolved, as the sense of this Conference, that Bishop Andrew’s name stand 
in the Minutes, Hymn Book, and Discipline, as formerly. 

“ ¢2. Resolved, That the rule in relation to the support of a bishop and his family, 
applies to Bishop Andrew. 

* ©3. Resolved, That whether in any, and if any, in what work, Bishop Andrew 
be employed, is to be determined by his own decision and action in relation to the 
previous action of this Conference in his case.’ 

‘TD. B. Randall offered an amendment, which was laid on the table. 

“The yeas and nays were ordered. During the call, J. G. Dow, F. G. Hibbard, 
and G. Smith, asked to be excused from voting. Conference refused to excuse them. 

“ The first resolution was adopted—ayes 155, noes 17. 

** A motion to adjourn was made and lost. 

«The second resolution was read, and the yeas and nays were ordered. During 
the call E. Robinson objected to being compelled to vote. A motion was made to 
excuse him, but was lost. I*. G. Hibbard and J. Spaulding asked to be excused from 
voting. Conference refused to excuse them. 

‘“‘ The resolution was adopted—yeas 152, nays 14. 

“* A motion to adjourn was made and lost. 

‘The third resolution was read. J. 'T. Peck offered a substitute, which, on mo- 
tion of J. S. Porter, was laid on the table. H. Slicer offered a substitute, which, on 
motion of T. Crowder, was laid on the table. J. A. Collins offered a substitute, 
which, on motion of J. T. Peck, was laid on the table. ‘Tl’. Crowder moved the pre- 
ae question, which prevailed. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the vote 
taken. 

**D, B. Randall, who voted in the negative, asked and obtained leave to change 
his vote, not having understood the question; being sick and obliged to be absent 
during a part of the discussion. He then voted in the affirmative. 

“The resolution was adopted—ayes 103, noes 67.” 


On Monday, June the 10th, the two newly-elected bishops were ordained. I will 
read a few passages from the journal of the Conference, under that date :—pp. 138-9. 


“On motion of J. Early, the order of business was suspended, the hour for ordain- 
ing the bishops elect having arrived. 

“Brothers Hamline and Janes, the bishops elect, were invited to chairs in front 
of the altar, the former sitting between brothers Pickering and Filmore, and the lat- 
ter between brothers L. Pierce and Capers. 

“The Collect and Epistle were read by Bishop Waugh, the Gospel by Bishop 
Morris, and the questions and prayers by Bishops Soule and Hedding. 

‘‘ Brother Hamline was presented by brothers Pickering and Filmore, and brother 
Janes by brothers Pierce and Capers. 

; “The imposition of hands was by the four bishops, Soule, Hedding, Waugh, and 
Morris. 

“Thus Leonidas Lent Hamline and Edmund Storer Janes were solemnly ordained 

superintendents or bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church.” 


I again return to the first of the Proofs, (p. 125,) and ask your Honours’ atten- 
tion to the phraseology. ‘The report, it will be seen, was made on the ‘“ Declara- 
tion :7’— 


**Saturpay, June 8.—On motion of R. Paine, the special order of the day was 


87 


dispensed with, and the report of the select committee of nine, on the declaration of 
fifty-one brethren, from the Southern conferences, was taken up. The report was 
read again. 

“‘C. Elliott moved the adoption of the report of the committee of nine. The firs 
resolution was read. The rule was suspended to allow P. Cartwright to extend his 
remarks. On the first resolution the previous question was moved, and the call was 
sustained. The yeas and nays were ordered and taken. Ayes, 147; noes, 22. 

“On motion of R. Paine, the vote by yeas and nays was reconsidered. On fur- 
ther motion, the resolution was amended, by striking out the words, ‘ delegates from 
the,’ and inserting ‘ annual.’ The discussion was resumed on the amended resolu- 
tion.” 


If your Honours will turn to p. 128, you will see how it was amended. The reso- 
lutions are there printed as they were amended. After the figure it originally read : 
“‘ Should the delegates from the conferences,” &c. They struck out “the delegates 
from” and inserted “ annual.’’ “The delegates ’’ could only mean those who were 
then present. That becomes a very material fact in respect to one of the claims 
set up in this matter. It was originally proposed that if the delegates then present 
should find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connexion, the rule there 
set forth should be observed ; but, on the motion of Mr. Paine, one of the Southern 
delegates, it was determined that, instead of it being left to them, it should be left to 
the annual conferences. 


Mr. Fancuer,—It was not on the motion of Mr. Paine. 


Mr. Lorp,—On the motion of Mr. Paine the vote was reconsidered ; and in the 
same connexion it is stated, ‘‘on further motion, the resolution was amended,” &c.., 
and therefore [ supposed it to be Mr. Paine’s motion. 


Mr. Fancuer,—The record does not show whose motion it was. 
Mr. Lorp continued :— 


“On motion, it was resolved to meet again at half-past three o’clock this after- 
noon. 

«The previous question was moved on the amended resolution, and the call was 
sustained, and the resolution adopted by one hundred and thirty-five affirmative to 
eighteen negative votes. 

“On the second resolution, J. T. Mitchell moved to amend, by inserting, ‘ and 
private members.’ ‘The amendment was laid on the table.’ 


By turning to p. 129, your Honours will see how that reads. If the amendment 
had been adopted, it would have stood thus :— 


«¢2. That ministers, local and travelling, of every grade and office in the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, ‘‘ and private members,” may, as they prefer, remain in that 
Church, or, without blame, attach themselves to the Church, South.’ 

“On motion of J. A. Collins, the session was prolonged fifteen minutes. 

“The second resolution was adopted by one hundred and thirty-nine affirmative to 
seventeen negative votes. 

‘* A motion to adjourn was lost. 

‘“‘ The yeas and nays were ordered on the third resolution. 

“The previous question was moved, and the call sustained. 

‘The session was further prolonged until the call of the roll was completed, and 
the vote finished. 

‘« The third resolution was adopted by one hundred and forty-seven yeas to twelve 
nays. 

‘« Adjourned with the benediction by brother Pickering. 


88 


“ Sarurpay Arternoon, June 8.—Conference met at half-past three o’clock, 
pursuant to adjournment, Bishop Morris in the chair, and was opened with religious 
exercises by brother Simpson. 

*‘ The journal of the morning was read and approved. 

“ On motion of M. Simpson, G. Peck and C. Elliott were put in place of S. Olin 
and L. L. Hamline, on the select committee of three to prepare a statement of the 
action of this Conference in the case of Bishop Andrew. 

‘On motion, the special order of business, on which Conference adjourned this 
morning, was resumed. : 

“The fourth resolution of the report of the select committee of nine was adopted. 

“On the fifth resolution the yeas and nays were ordered. It was adopted by one 
hundred and fifty-three yeas to thirteen nays. 

“The sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth resolutions were adopted. 

** To the tenth resolution D. B. Randall moved an amendment which was adopted, 
and is incorporated with the resolution. ; 

“The eleventh and twelfth resolutions were adopted. On motion, the order of the 
eleventh and twelfth resolutions was inverted, so as to make the latter stand first. 

“The preamble of the report was adopted. 

‘‘ The blank in the seventh resolution was filled up with “three ;” and N. Bangs, 
G. Peck, and G. Filmore, were appointed commissioners under the seventh resolu- 
tion. G. Filmore tendered his resignation, which was accepted, and J. B. Finley 
appointed in his place. 

“On motion of W. Winans, the Secretary was requested to prepare and furnish to J. 
Early a copy of the ‘‘ Declaration”’ so often referred to, and of the report just adopted. 

‘¢B. M. Drake offered a resolution, which, on motion, was laid on the table.” 


That was one of the resolutions which I read from one book. 


‘J. Porter moved a reconsideration of the first resolution, with a view of offering 
a substitute. The motion to reconsider was laid on the table. 

‘“‘ The report as a whole was adopted. It is as follows :— 

“ «The select committee of nine, to consider and report on the Declaration of the 
delegates from the conferences of the slaveholding States, beg leave to submit the 
following report :— 

«« ‘Whereas a Declaration has been presented to this General Conference, with 
the signatures of fifty-one delegates of the body, from thirteen annual conferences in 
the slaveholding States, representing that, for various reasons enumerated, the ob- 
jects and purposes of the Christian ministry and Church organization cannot be suc- 
cessfully accomplished by them under the jurisdiction of this General Conference as 
now constituted ; and 

“« *« Whereas, in the event of a separation, a contingency to which the Declaration asks 
attention as not improbable, we esteem it the duty of this General Conference to 
meet the emergency with Christian kindness and the strictest equity ; therefore, 

“* « Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences in General Con- 
ference assembled, 

“1. That, should the annual conferences in the slaveholding States find it necessary 
to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connexion, the following rule shall be observed 
with regard to the northern boundary of such connexion :—All the societies, stations, 
and conferences adhering to the Church in the South, by a vote of a majority of the 
members of said societies, stations, and conferences, shall remain under the unmo- 
lested pastoral care of the Southern Church; and the ministers of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church shall in no wise attempt to organize Churches or societies within 
the limits of the Church South, nor shall they attempt to exercise any pastoral over- 
sight therein ; it being understood that the ministry of the South reciprocally observe 
the same rule in relation to stations, societies, and conferences adhering, by a vote 
of a majority, to the Methodist Episcopal Church ; provided, also, that this rule shall 
apply only to societies, stations, and conferences bordering on the line of division, 
and not to interior charges, which shall in all cases be left to the care of that Church 
within whose territory they are situated. 

“ ¢2. That ministers local and travelling, of every grade and office in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, may, as they prefer, remain in that Church, or, without blame, 
attach themselves to the Church, South. 


89 


“ «3. Resolved, by the delegates of all the annual conferences in General Confer- 
ence assembled, That we recommend to all the annual conferences, at their first ap- 
proaching sessions, to authorize a change of the sixth restrictive article, so that the 
first clause shall read thus :—‘“ They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book 
Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, to any other purpose other than for the benefit 
of the travelling, supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, 
widows, and children, and to such other purposes as may be determined upon by the 
votes of two-thirds of the members of the General Conference.” 

“«¢4. That whenever the annual conferences, by a vote of three-fourths of all their 
members voting on the third resolution, shall have concurred in the recommendation 
to alter the sixth restrictive article, the agents at New-York and Cmcinnati shall, 
and they are hereby authorized and directed to deliver over to any authorized agent 
or appointee of the Church, South, should one be organized, all notes and book ac- 
counts against the ministers, Church members, or citizens within its boundaries, with 
authority to collect the same for the sole use of the Southern Church ; and that said 
agents also convey to the aforesaid agent or appointee of the South, all the real 
estate, and assign to him all the property, including presses, stock, and all right and 
interest connected with the printing establishments at Charleston, Richmond, and 
Nashville, which now belong to the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

«« «5. That when the annual conferences shall have approved the aforesaid change 
in the sixth restrictive article, there shall be transferred to the above agent of the 
Southern Church so much of the capital and produce of the Methodist Book Concern 
as will, with the notes, book accounts, presses, &c., mentioned in the last resolution, 
bear the same proportion to the whole property of said Concern that the travelling 
preachers in the Southern Church shall bear to all the travelling ministers of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church ; the division to be made on the basis of the number of 
travelling preachers in the forthcoming minutes. 

“« «6. That the above transfer shall be in the form of annual payments of $25,000 per 
annum, and specifically in stock of the Book Concem, and in Southern notes and ac- 
counts due the establishment, and accruing after the first transfer mentioned above ; 
and until the payments are made, the Southern Church shall share in al! the net 
profits of the Book Concern, in the proportion that the amount due them, or in arrears, 
bears to all the property of the Concern. 

“<7. That Nathan Bangs, George Peck, and James B. Finley be, and they are 
hereby appointed commissioners to act in concert with the same number of commis- 
sioners appointed by the Southern organization, (should one be formed,) to estimate 
the amount which will fall due to the South by the precedimg rule, and to have full 
powers to carry into effect the whole arrangements proposed with regard to the divi- 
sion of property, should the separation take place. And if by any means a vacancy 
occurs in this board of commissioners, the Book Committee at New-York shall fill 
said vacancy. 

“¢8. That whenever any agents of the Southern Church are clothed with legal 
authority or corporate power to act in the premises, the agents at New-York are 
hereby authorized and directed to act in concert with said Southem agents, so as to 
give the provisions of these resolutions a legally binding force. 

“ «9. ‘That all the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church in meeting-houses, 
parsonages, colleges, schools, conference funds, cemeteries, and of every kind within 
the limits of the Southern organization, shall be forever free from any claim set up 
on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as this resolution can be of 
force in the premises. 

“+10. That the Church so formed in the South shall have a common right to use 
all the copy-rights in possession of the Book Concerns at New-York and Cincinnati, 
at the time of the settlement by the commissioners. 

«141. That the book agents at New-York be directed to make such compensation 
to the conferences South, for their dividend from the Chartered Fund, as the com- 
missioners above provided for shall agree upon. 

‘© «That the bishops be respectfully requested to lay that part of this report requir- 
ing the action of the annual conferences, before them as soon as possible, beginning with 
the New-York Conference.’ ” 


That is all we shall read from the Book of Proofs No. 1. What remains, belongs 
to our friends on the other side, if they think it necessary to introduce it. I wilt 


90 


now proceed to read that part of the evidence which relates to the organization of 
the Church under this Plan of Separation. I read from the Book of Proofs No. 2, 
page 1 :— 


“1. History of proceedings of the Delegates from slaveholding States, at their meet- 
ing in the City of New-York, on the day after the adjournment of the General! 
Conference of 1844. 


“ At that meeting, they adopted the following plan of action as proper to be recom- 
mended to the conferences represented by them :— 

“<< With a view to promote uniformity of action in the premises, we beg leave to 
submit to your consideration the expediency of concurring in the following plan of 
procuring the judgment of the Church within the slaveholding States, as to the pro- 
priety of organizing a Southern division of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States, and of effecting such an organization should it be deemed necessary :— 

«1. There shall be a convention held in Louisville, Kentucky, to commence the 
Ist of May, 1845,—composed of delegates from the several annual conferences within 
the slaveholding States, appointed in the ratio of one for every eleven members. 

«© ¢2. 'These delegates shall be appointed at the ensuing session of the several an- 
nual conferences enumerated, each conference providing for the expenses of its 
own delegates. 

‘«««3. These several annual conferences shall instruct their delegates to the proposed 
convention on the points on which action is contemplated—conforming their instruc- 
tions, as far as possible, to the opinions and wishes of the membership within their 
several conference bounds.’ 

“They also sent abroad the following address :— 


«“¢ ADDRESS 


“¢ To the Ministers and Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the 
Slaveholding States and Territories. 


‘“«« The undersigned, delegates in the late General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, from thirteen annual conferences in slaveholding States and Ter- 
ritories, would most respectfully represent—that the various action of the majority 
of the General Conference, at its recent session, on the subject of slavery and aboli- 
tion, has been such as to render it necessary, in the judgment of those addressing 
you, to call attention to the proscription and disability under which the Southern 
portion of the Church must of necessity labour in view of the action alluded to, un- 
less some measures are adopted to free the minority of the South from the oppressive 
jurisdiction of the majority in the North, in this respect. 

““«The proceedings of the majority, in several cases involving the question of 
slavery, have been such as indicate most conclusively that the legislative, judicial, 
and administrative action of the General Conference, as now organized, will always 
be extremely hurtful, if not finally ruinous, to the interests of the Southern portion of 
the Church; and must necessarily produce a state of conviction and feeling in the 
Savehplsing States, entirely inconsistent with either the peace or prosperity of the 

urch. 

“«« The opinions and purposes of the Church in the North on the subject of slavery, 
are in direct conflict with those of the South, and unless the South will submit to the 
dictation and interference of the North, greatly beyond what the existing law of the 
Church on slavery and abolition authorizes, there is no hope of anything like union 
or harmony. ‘The debate and action of the General Conference in the case of the 
Rey. Mr. Harding, of the Baltimore Conference ; the debate and action in the case 
of Bishop Andrew ; and the opinions and purposes ayowed and indicated in a mani- 
festo of the majority, in reply to a Protest from the minority against the proceedings 
complained of,—together with hundreds of petitions from the East, North, and West, 
demanding that slavery, in all its possible forms, be separated from the Church ;— 
these, and similar demonstrations, have convinced the undersigned, that they cannot 
remain silent or inactive without hazard and injustice to the different portions of the 
Church they represent. 

““¢'They have, therefore, thought proper to invoke the attention of the Church in 
the South to a state of things they are compelled to regard as worthy the immediate 


91 


notice and action of the Church throughout all the slaveholding states and territories. 
The subject of slavery and abolition, notwithstanding the plain law of the Discipline 
on the subject, was agitated and debated in the late General Conference, for five 
successive weeks; and even at the very close of the session, the aspect of things was 
less satisfactory and more threatening to the South than at any former period ; and 
under such circumstances of mutual distrust and disagreement, the General Confer- 
ence adjourned. 

“«« Some time before the adjournment, however, upon a Declaration made by the 
Southern delegations, setting forth the impossibility of enduring such a state of 
things much longer, the General Conference, by a very large and decided majority, 
agreed to a plan of formal and pacific separation, by which the Southern conferences 
are to have a distinct and independent organization of their own, inno way subject to 
Northern jurisdiction. It affords us pleasure to state that there were those found 
among the majority who met this proposition with every manifestation of justice and 
liberality. And should a similar spirit be exhibited by the annual conferences in the 
North, when submitted to them, as provided for in the Plan itself, there will remain 
no legal impediment to its peaceful consummation. 

*«<« This Plan is approved by the undersigned as the best, and, indeed, all that can 
be done at present, in remedy of the great evil under which we labour. Provision is 
made for a peaceable and constitutional division of Church property of every kind. 
The Plan does not decide that division shall take place; but simply, and it is 
thought securely, provides that it may, if it be found necessary. Of this necessity, 
you are to be the judges, after a careful survey and comparison of all the reasons for 
and against it. 

“« As the undersigned have had opportunity and advantages which those at a dis- 
tance could not possess, to form a correct judgment in the premises, and it may be 
expected of them that they express their views fully on the subject, they do not hesi- 
tate to say, that they regard a separation at no distant day as imevitable ; and 
further, that the Plan of Separation agreed upon is as eligible as the Southern con- 
ferences have any right to expect at any time. We most respectfully, therefore, and 
with no common solicitude, beseech our brethren of the ministry and membership in 
the slaveholding States, to examine this matter carefully, and weighing it well in all 
its bearings, try to reach the conclusion most proper under the circumstances. Shall 
that which, in all moral likelihood, must take place soon, be attempted now, or are 
there reasons why it should be postponed ? 

***We deprecate all excitement; we ask you to be calm and collected, and to 
approach and dispose of the subject with all the candour and forbearance the occa- 
sion demands. ‘The separation proposed is not schism, it is not secession. It isa 
state or family, separating into two different states or families, by mutual consent. 
As the “Methodist Episcopal Church”? will be found north of the dividing line, so 
the “Methodist Episcopal Church”? will be found south of the same line. 

‘“««The undersigned have clung to the cherished unity of the Church with a firm- 
ness of purpose and force of feeling which nothing but invincible necessity could 
subdue. If, however, nominal unity must co-exist with unceasing strife and alien- 
ated feeling, what is likely to be gained by its perpetuation? Every minister and 
member of the Church in slave-holding States must perceive at once, that the con- 
stant, not to say interminable, agitation of the slavery and abohtion question in the 
councils of the Church, and elsewhere, must terminate in incalculable injury to all 
the Southern conferences. Our access to slave and master is to a great extent cut 
off. The legislation of the Church in conflict with that of the State—Church policy 
attempting to control public opinion and social order—must generate an amount of 
hostility to the Church, impossible to be overcome, and slowly but certainly diminish 
both the means and the hope of usefulness and extension on the part of the Church. 

‘«« Disposed, however, to defer to the judgment of the Church, we leave this sub- 
ject with you. Our first and most direct object has been to bring it fully before you, 
and, giving you an opportunity to judge and determine for yourselves, await your 
decision. ‘The minority from the South in the late General Conference, were most 
anxious to adjourn the decision in the case of Bishop Andrew, with all its attendant 
results, to the annual conferences and to the Church at large, to consider and decide 
upon during the next four years—as no charge was presented against the bishop, and 
especially as this measure was urgently recommended by the whole bench of bishops, 
although Bishop Hedding subsequently withdrew his name. ‘The proposition, how 


92 


‘ever, to refer the whole subject to the Church, was promptly rejected by the ma- 
jority, and immediate action demanded and had. But as all the facts connected with 
the equivocal suspension of Bishop Andrew, will come before you in other forms, it 
‘is unnecessary to detail them in this brief address, the main object of which is to 
place before you, in a summary way, the principal facts and reasons connected with 
‘the proposed separation of the Southern conferences into a distinct organization.’ 

* Adopted at a meeting of the Southern delegations, held in New-York, at the 
sclose of the General Conference, June 11, 1844, and ordered to be published. 

‘‘ Signed on behalf of the Kentucky, Missouri, Holston, Tennessee, North Carolina, 
Memphis, Arkansas, Virginia, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and South 
Carolina Annual Conferences. 

“ Kentucky, H. B. Bascom, William Gunn, H. H. Kavanaugh, E. Stevenson, 
‘B. T. Crouch, G. W. Brush. Missouri, W. W. Redman, W. Patton, J. C. Berry- 
man, J. M. Jameson. AHolsion, E. F. Sevier, S. Patton, T. Stringfield. Tennessee, 
R. Paine, J. B. M’Ferrin, A. L. P. Green, T. Maddin. North Carolina, B. 'T. Blake, 
J. Jamieson, P. Doub. Memphis, G. W. D. Harris, S. S. Moody, W. M’Mahon, 
“Thomas Joyner. Arkansas, J. C. Parker, W. P. Ratcliffe, A. Hunter. Virginia, 
J. Early, T. Crowder, W. A. Smith, L. M. Lee. Mississippi, W. Winans, B. M. 
Drake, J. Lane, G. M. Rogers. Texas, Littleton Fowler. Alabama, J. Boring, 
J. Hamilton, W. Murrah, G. Garrett. Georgia, G. F. Pierce, W. J. Parks, 
Pierce, J. W. Glenn, J. E. Evans, A. B. Longstreet. South Carolina, W. Capers, 
‘W. M. Wightman, C. Betts, S. Dunwody, H. A. C. Walker.” 


If your Honours please, { propose now to show the action of the several Southern 
conferences upon the subject. I begin to read on page 7. 


“The Kentucky Conference was the first in the Southern division of the Church 
‘to meet after the adjournment of the General Conference. It convened on the 11th 
‘of September, 1844, and adopted the following resolutions, with but one dissenting 
vote :— 

“<< Report of the Committee on Division. 

“<The committee to whom was referred the subject of the division of the Church 
into two separate General Conference jurisdictions, and kindred subjects, have had 
‘the same under serious consideration, and beg leave to report :— 

«That, enlightened as the conference is presumed to be, on the merits of the very 
important subject upon which your committee have been called to aet, it was not 
‘deemed expedient to delay this report by an elaborate and argumentative investiga- 
‘tion of the matters committed te them, in their various relations, principles, and 
‘bearings ; they, therefore, present the result of their deliberations to the conference 
‘by offering for adoption the following resolutions :— 

“*<1_ Resolved, That it is the deliberate judgment of this conference, that the 
action of the late General Conference, virtually deposing Bishop Andrew, and also 
‘their action in confirming the decision of the Baltimore Conference, im the case of 
‘the Rev. F. A. Harding, are not sustained by the Discipline of our Church, and that 
‘we consider those proceedings as constituting a highly dangerous precedent- 

“42. Resolved, That we deeply regret the prospect of division growing out ef these 
proceedings, and that we do most sincerely hope and pray that some effeetual means, 
mot inconsistent with the interests and honour of all concerned, may be suggested and 
devised, by which so great a calamity may be averted, and to this end we recommend 
that our societies be freely consulted on the subject. 

“43. Resolved, That we approve the holding of a convention of delegates from the 
onferences in the slaveholding States, in the city of Louisville, on the first day of 
May next, agreeably to the recommendation of the Southern and South-westerm dele- 
gates in the late General Conference ; and that the ratio of representation proposed 
‘by said delegates—to wit, one delegate for every eleven members of conference—be 
and the same is hereby adopted ; and that this conference will elect delegates to the 
proposed convention upon said basis. 

“44. Resolved, That should a division be found to be indispensable, the delegates 
of this conference are hereby required to act under the following instructions, to wit : 
that the Southern and South-western conferences shall not be regarded as a seces- 
sion from the Methodist Episcopal Church, but that they shall be recognised in law, 
and to all intents and purposes, as a co-ordinate branch of the Methodist Episcopal 


93 


Church in the United States of America, simply acting under a separate jurisdiction. 
And further, that being well satisfied with the Discipline of the Church as it is, this 
conference instruct its delegates not to support or favour any change in said Disci- 
pline by said convention. 

“<5. Resolved, That unless we can be assured that the rights of our ministry and 
membership can be effectually secured according to Discipline, against future aggres- 
sions, and reparation be made for past injury, we shall deem the contemplated divi- 
sion unavoidable. 

“«¢6. Resolved, 'That we approve the course of our delegates in the late General 
Conference in the premises, and that we tender them our thanks for their faithful and 
independent discharge of duty in a trying crisis. 

“© 7. Resolved, That the secretary of this conference be directed to have these 
resolutions published in such of our Church papers as may be willing to insert them. 

*¢ All of which is respectfully submitted. M. M. Henxue, Chairman.’ 


“ Further Action in Reference to the Contemplated Convention. 


“¢ Resolved, by the Kentucky Annual Conference, That should the proposed con- 
vention, representing the annual conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 
the slaveholding States, appointed to assemble in the city of Louisville, the first of 
May, 1845, proceed to a separate organization, as contingently provided for in the 
resolutions of this body on yesterday, then and in that event, the convention shall be 
regarded as the regular General Conference, authorized and appointed by the several an- 
nual conferences of the Southern division of the Church, and as possessing all the rights, 
powers, and privileges of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in the United States, and subject to the same restrictions, limitations, and restraints. 

“< « Resolved, That in order to secure the constitutional character and action of the 
convention as a General Conference proper, should a separate organization take 
place, the ratio of representation as now found in the 2d restrictive rule, one for 
every twenty-one, shall prevail and determine the number of constitutional delegates, 
taking and accrediting as such the proper number from each annual conference first 
elected in order, and that the supernumerary delegates be regarded as members of 
the convention to deliberate, etc., but not members of the General Conference proper, 
should the convention proceed to a separate organization in the South—Provided, 
nevertheless, that should any delegate or delegates, who would not be excluded from 
the General Conference proper, by the operation of the above regulation, be absent, 
then any delegate or delegates present, not admitted by said regulation as member 
or members of the constitutional General Conference, may lawfully take the seat or 
seats of such absent delegates, upon the principle of the selection named above. 

“<¢ Resolved, by the Kentucky Annual Conference, 'That we respectfully invite the 
bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, who may feel themselves disposed to do 
so, to be in attendance at the contemplated convention, to be held in the city of 
Louisville, Ky., in May, 1845. 

“« Resolved, by the Kentucky Annual Conference, That we appoint the Friday im- 
mediately preceding the day fixed for the meeting of the proposed General Conven- 
tion of the delegates of the conferences, as a day of fasting and prayer for the 
blessing of Almighty God on the said convention.’ 


‘««The Missouri Conference adopted the following report and resolutions, from the 
Committee on Division :— 


“ Report of the Committee on Division. 

«“ «The committee to whom was referred the subject of a division of the Church 
into two separate General Conference jurisdictions, together with the causes and 
circumstances connected with the same, have bestowed upon it, in the most prayerful 
and religious manner, all the time and attention they could command for the purpose, 
and beg leave to present the following as their report :— 

«««'That inasmuch as the conference is presumed to be well informed on the merits 
of the very important subject upon which the committee has been called to act, it 
was not deemed necessary to delay this report by an extended and argumentative 
investigation of the matters committed to them, in their various relations, principles, 
and bearings ; they would, therefore, present the result of their deliberations to the 
conference by offering for adoption the following resolutions :— 

““< Resolved, ‘That we have looked for many years, with painful apprehension and 


94 


disapproval, upon the agitation of the slavery and abolition subject in our General 
Conference, and now behold with sorrow and regret, the disastrous results which it 
has brought about. 

“« Resolved, That while we accord to the great majority of our Northern brethren 
the utmost purity of intention, and while we would carefully refrain from all harsh 
denunciations, we are compelled to pronounce the proceedings of the late General 
Conference against Bishop Andrew, extra-judicial and oppressive. 

‘““* Resolved, That we deeply regret the prospect of separation growing out of 
these proceedings, and that we do most sincerely hope and pray that some effectual 
means not inconsistent with the interests and honour of all concerned, may be sug- 
gested and devised, by which so great a calamity may be averted ; and to this end 
we recommend that our societies be freely consulted on this subject. 

“¢ Resolved, That we approve the holding of a convention of delegates from the 
conferences in the slaveholding States, in the city of Louisville, Kentucky, on the 
Ist day of May next, agreeably to the recommendation of the delegates from the 
Southern and South-western conferences, in the late General Conference ; and that 
the ratio of representation proposed by said delegates—to wit, one delegate for every 
eleven members of the conference—be, and the same is hereby adopted; and that 
this conference will elect delegates to the proposed convention upon said basis. 

“« Resolved, That our delegates act under the following instructions, to wit : 
to oppose the division of the Church, unless such division, under all the circum- 
stances of the case, be found to be indispensable, (and consequently unavoidable ;) 
and should such necessity be found to exist, and the division be determined on, 
then, and in that event, that the Southern and South-western conferences shall not 
be regarded as a secession from the Methodist Episcopal Church, but that they shall 
be recognised in law, and to all intents and purposes, as a co-ordinate branch of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, simply acting under 
a separate jurisdiction. And further, that being well satisfied with the Discipline of 
the Church as it is, this conference instruct its delegates not to support or favour 
any change in said Discipline by said convention. 

“«<« Resolved, That unless we can be assured that the rights of our ministry and 
membership can be effectually secured according to the Discipline, against future 
aggressions, we shall deem the contemplated division as unavoidable. 

“¢ Resolved, That should the proposed convention, representing the annual con- 
ferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the slaveholding States, appointed to 
assemble at the city of Louisville, Kentucky, the Ist of May, 1845, proceed to a 
separate organization, as contingently provided for in the foregoing resolutions, then, 
in that event, the convention shall be regarded as the regular General Conference, 
authorized and appointed by the several annual conferences of the Southern division 
of the Church, and as possessing all the rights, powers, and privileges of the General 
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and 
subject to the same restrictions, limitations, and restraints. 

“<¢ Resolved, That in order to secure the constitutional character and action of the 
convention as a General Conference proper, should a separate organization take 
place, the ratio of representation as now found in the second restrictive rule, one for 
every twenty-one, shall prevail and determine the constitutional delegates, taking 
and accrediting as such the proper number from each annual conference, first elected 
in order, and that the supernumerary delegates be regarded as members of the con- 
vention to deliberate, but not members of the General Conference proper, should 
the convention proceed to a separate organization in the South. Provided, never- 
theless, that should any delegate or delegates who would not be excluded from the 
General Conference proper, by the operation of the above regulation, be absent, then 
any delegate or delegates present, not admitted by said regulations as a member or 
members of the constitutional General Conference, may lawfully take the seat or 
seats of such absent delegates, upon the principle of selection named above. 

“* Resolved, That we have read with deep regret the violent proceedings of some 
of our Southern brethren, in their primary meetings, against some of our bishops 
and others ; and that we do most cordially invite to our pulpits and firesides all our 
bishops and Northern brethren, who, in the event of a division, shall belong to the 
Northern Methodist Episcopal Church. 

‘“«« Resolved, That the preachers shall take up public collections in all their cir- 
cuits and stations, sometime before the first day of March next, for the purpose of 


95 


defraying the expenses of the delegates to the above-named convention, and pay 
over the same to the delegates, or the respective presiding elders, so that the dele- 
gates may receive the same before starting to the convention. 

“¢Wm. Patten, Andrew Monroe, J. Boyle, W. W. Redman, John Glannville, 
E. Perkins, T. W. Chandler, Jas. G. T. Dunleavy, John Thatcher.—Committee.’ 


“The following resolutions were offered and immediately adopted by the con- 
ference :— 

“ « Resolved, That we approve the course of our delegates in their action at the 
late General Conference, in the case of Bishop Andrew, and the part they took in 
the subsequent acts of the Southern delegates, growing out of the proceedings of 
the majority, and they are hereby entitled to our hearty thanks for their manly 
course in a trying crisis. 

“¢ Resolved, That we invite the bishops of our Church, who may feel free to do 
so, and they are hereby invited, to attend the contemplated convention at Louisville, 
Kentucky. J. H. Linn, 

R. Boyn.’ 


“The Holston Conference adopted the following report and resolutions from the 
Committee on Separation :— 


“ Report of the Committee on Separation. 


«“«The committee to whom was referred the subject of Church separation and 

other matters connected therewith, would respectfully submit the following re- 

ort :— ‘ 

ar In common with our brethren all over our widely-extended Zion, our hearts are 
exceedingly pained at the prospect of disunion, growing out of the action of the late 
General Conference in the case of Bishop Andrew. Your committee believe this 
action to be extra-judicial, and forming a highly-dangerous precedent. The aspect 
of affairs at the close of the General Conference, was indeed gloomy ; and while we 
have sought for light from every possible source, we cannot believe that our Church 
papers are the true exponents of the views and feelings of the whole South, or of 
the whole North. We would respect the opinions of our brethren everywhere, but 
we feel that we shall not be doing justice to ourselves, the Church, or the world, if 
we do not express independently, and in the fear of God, our own sentiments on this 
important subject. We are not prepared to see the Church of our love and choice, 
which has been so signally blessed of God, and cherished by the tears, prayers, and 
untiring efforts of our fathers, lacerated and torn asunder, without one more effort to 
bind up and heal her bleeding wounds. Therefore, 

‘¢ « Resolved, That we approve of the proposed convention to be holden at Louis- 
ville, Kentucky, May 1st, 1845; and will elect delegates to said convention, accord- 
ing to the ratio agreed upon at the last General Conference by the Southern 
delegates. 

“« Resolved, That the conferences in the non-slaveholding States and territories, 
be, and they are hereby respectfully requested to elect one delegate from each annual 
conference, (either in conference capacity or by the presiding elders,) to meet with 
one delegate from each of the slaveholding conferences, in the city of Louisville, 
Kentucky, on the first day of May, 1845, to devise some plan of compromise. And, 
in the event that the non-slaveholding conferences, or any number of them, which, 
with the slaveholding conferences, shall make a respectable majority of all the annual 
conferences, shall so elect delegates,—then, and in that case, the delegates which we 
will elect from this conference to the Louisville convention, shall appoint one of their 
number on said committee of compromise. And the Southerm and South-western 
conferences are respectfully requested to agree to act upon this plan. 

“¢ Resolved, That if nothing can be effected on the foregoing plan, then the dele- 
gates from this conference are instructed to propose to the teuavile convention the 
following or some similar plan, as the basis of connexion between the two General 
Conferences—proposed in case of separate organization :—The said General Con- 
ferences shall appoint an equal number of delegates, (say ten,) who shall meet 
together in the interim of the General Conferences, to whom shall be referred for 
adjustment all matters of difference between the two General Conferences, or those 
Churches over which they exercise jurisdiction, their decisions or propositions for 
adjustment to be referred for ultimate action to the General Conferences before 


96 


mentioned; and when both General Conferences have confirmed their decision, it 
shall be final and binding on both parties. 

“«¢ Resolved, That if both the foregomg propositions should fail, then the dele- 
gates from this conference are instructed to support the plan of separation proposed 
by the late General Conference. And in so doing, we positively disavow secession, 
but declare ourselves, by the act of the General Conference, a co-ordinate branch of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. And in the event of either the second or third 
proposition obtaining, the delegates from this conference are instructed not to favour 
any—even the least—alteration of our excellent Book of Discipline, except in so far 
as may be necessary to form a separate organization. 

“« Resolved, That our delegates to the late General Conference merit the warmest 
expression of our thanks, for their prudent, yet firm course in sustaining the interests 
of our beloved Methodism in the South. 

“<« Resolved, That we warmly commend the truly Christian and impartial course 
of our bishops at the late General Conference, and we affectionately invite all our 
superintendents to attend the convention to be holden at Louisville, Kentucky. 

‘«¢ All which is respectfully submitted. 

“«T. K, Catlett, T. Sullins, A. H. Mathes, Ephm. E. Wiley, David Fleming, 
C. Fulton, R. M. Stevens, Jas. Cumming, O. F. Cunningham.’ ” 


If your Honours please, I will now endeavour to abridge the reading. I refer 
your Honours to page 113. There was action by the Conferences of Kentucky and 
Missouri, Holston and Tennessee, in 1845, subsequent to the Louisville convention. 


“‘ Next, the Holston Conference met.” 
Juper Netson,—Where is the Holston Conference? 


The Hon. Tuomas Ewrne, (who being counsel for the defendants in a correlative 
case in Ohio, attended the trial of this suit to watch its progress,)—It embraces East 
Tennessee, part of Georgia, and other contiguous territory. 

Mr. Lorp continued :— 


“Next, the Holston Conference met: Bishop Andrew presided, and the confer- 
ence adopted the following preamble and resolutions, with but one negative vote ; 
and the brother who gave the negative vote, afterwards gave in his adhesion to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and took work of the conference as usual :— 

“The followmg preamble and resolutions were offered by Samuel Patten, and 
adopted by a vote of 51 in the affirmative, and 1 in the negative. Several members 
were not in attendance at the conference. 

«« «Whereas, the long-continued agitation on the subject of slavery and abolition 
in the Methodist Episcopal Church did, at the General Conference of said Church, 
held in the city of New-York, in May, 1844, result in the adoption of certain mea- 
sures by that body, which seriously threatened a disruption of the Church ; and to 
avert this calamity, said General Conference did advise and adopt a plan contem- 
plating the peaceful separation of the South from the North; and constituting the 
conferences in the slave-holding States the sole judges of the necessity of such sepa- 
ration : and, whereas, the conferences in the slave-holding States, in the exercise of 
the right accorded to them by the General Conference, did, by their representatives 
in convention at Louisville, Kentucky, in May last, decide that separation was ne- 
cessary, and proceeded to organize themselves into a separate and distinct ecclesias- 
tical connexion, under the style and title of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
basing their claim to a legitimate relation to the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States, upon their unwavering adherence to the Plan of Separation, adopted 
by the General Conference of said Church, in 1844, and their devotion to the doc- 
trines, discipline, and usages of the Church as they received them from their fathers. 

«« And as the Plan of Separation provides that the conferences bordering on the 
geographical line of separation, shall decide their relation by the votes of the majo- 
rity—as, also, that ministers of every grade shall make their election North or South 
without censure—therefore, 

“ «1. Resolved, That we now proceed to determine the question of our ecclesias- 
tical relation, by the vote of the conference. 


97 


‘© ¢2. That we, the members of the Holston Annual Conference, claiming all the 
rights, powers, and privileges of an annual conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the United States, do hereby make our election with, and adhere to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

“« «3, That while we thus declare our adherence to the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, we repudiate the idea of secession in any schismatic or offensive 
sense of the phrase, as we neither give up nor surrender any thing which we have re- 
ceived as constituting any part of Methodism, and adhere to the Southern ecclesias- 
tical organization, in strict accordance with the provisions of the Plan of Separation, 
adopted by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at its ses- 
sion in New-York, in May, 1844. 

“«<«4,. That we are satisfied with our Book of Discipline as it is, on the subject of 
slavery and every other vital feature of Methodism, as recorded in that book; and 
that we will not tolerate any changes whatever, except such verbal or unimportant 
alterations as may, in the judgment of the General Conference, facilitate the work in 
which we are engaged, and promote uniformity and harmony in our administration. 

“« «5. That the journals of our present session, as well as all our official business, 
be henceforth conformed in style and title to our ecclesiastical relations. 

“« «6. That it is our desire to cultivate and maintain fraternal relations with our 
brethren of the North. And we do most sincerely deprecate the continuance of pa- 
per warfare, either by editors or correspondents, in our official Church papers, and 
devoutly pray for the speedy return of peace and harmony in the Church, both North 
and South. 

“¢7. That the Holston Annual Conference most heartily commend the course of 
our beloved bishops, Soule and Andrew, during the recent agitations which have re- 
sulted in the territorial and jurisdictional separation of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and that we tender them our thanks for their steady adherence to principle 
and the best interests of the slave population. 

“¢Davip Apams.’” 


I will not read all the resolutions of the various conferences, but refer your Honours 
to them. The adhering resolutions of the Tennessee Conference will be found on 
pp. 16, 17, 18, and 19. They state “that the actions of the late General Confer- 
ence, together with the entire merits of the proceedings of that body, leading to the 
contemplated separation of the Church, have been fully and fairly presented to our 
people, and that both the ministry and membership within our bounds have, with 
great solicitude and prayerful anxiety, investigated the subject in its various rela- 
tions, principles, and bearings ;” and that they consider a separate organization pro- 
per. I refer particularly to the second resolution, which is on page 17; to the third 
resolution on the same page ; and to the fourth resolution on page 18, as indicating 
the character of the separation. The sixth resolution provides for a General Confer- 
ence, in a contingency there contemplated ; and the seventh resolution shows that 
they adopted the same mode of representation in the General Conference. They dis- 
sented from the medium scheme of the Holston Conference, as, indeed, they all did. 

The next is the Memphis Conference, page 20. They appointed a committee to 
examine and report upon the subject, and a series of resolutions was reported and 
adopted, in which, amongst other things, they approved the holding of a convention 
of delegates from the conferences in the slave-holding States, in the city of Louisville, 
Kentucky, agreeably to the recommendation of the Southern and South-Western 
delegates in the late General Conference. Those resolutions will be found on pp. 21, 
22, and 23. 

The resolutions of the Mississippi Conference are the next in order, page 24. These 
documents are all prefaced with a short statement, that an investigation and exami- 
nation of the subject had been made. The resolutions commence on page 25. The 
first and second resolutions declare “that the decision of the late General Conference, 
in the cases of the Rev, F. A. Harding and Bishop Andrew, was unauthorized by the 

7 


98. 


Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church ; and that a tame submission to them, 
upon the part of the Church in the slave-holding States, would prevent our access to 
the slaves, and expose us to suspicions destructive to our general usefulness ;” and 
“that as no authorized plan of compromise has been suggested by the North, and as 
all the propositions made by the Southern delegates were rejected, we regard a sepa- 
ration as inevitable, and approve the holding of a convention to meet in Louisville.” 
The third resolution contains instructions to their delegates to such convention. 

The next is the Arkansas Conference, whose resolutions will be found upon 
pp. 27, 28, and 29. 

The Virginia resolutions are on pp. 30, 31, and 32. 

The North Carolina Conference adopted the report of their committee, in which 
they “‘ deeply regret the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which the course 
of the majority in the late General Conference renders not only necessary but inevi- 
table.” I would particularly call attention to what they say on page 34 :— 

“ Nothing was left for the South to do, but to pass from under the jurisdiction of 
so wayward a power, to the regulations and government of our old, wholesome, 
and Scriptural Discipline. This, we sorrow when we say it, has opened a great 
gulf—we fear an impassable gulf—between the North and the South. This conso- 
lation, however, if no other, they have—the good Book of Discipline, containing the 
distinctive features of the Methodist Episcopal Church, shall still lie on the South 
side. Compelled by circumstances which could neither be alleviated nor controlled 
—which neither the entreaties of kindness nor the force of truth could successfully 
tesist—we hesitate not to decide on being forever separate from those whom we not 


only esteem, but love. Better far that we should suffer the loss of union, than that 
thousands, yea millions of souls should perish.” 


Their resolutions follow. 


The proceedings and resolutions of the South Carolina Conference, which will be 
found on the 35th and subsequent pages, show how they came to their conclusion. 
It appears that in all the circuits and stations of that conference, and in other meet- 
ings and at preaching places where there was a society, the subject had been talked 
over, and on all occasions there had been but one voice uttered, one opinion ex- 
pressed. On pages 36 and 37, your Honours will find a statement of the manner in 
which they came to their conclusion ; and considering where it comes from, it is a very 
moderate document indeed. Their resolutions are on pages 38 and 39, and they 
show that they cordially agreed in the necessity of a separation. I would very gladly 
read all these resolutions if it were consistent with a proper economy of time. Their 
resolutions, however, show that the subject had been deliberately considered. 

The next is the Indian Mission Conference, which lies, I believe, west of the Mis- 
sissippi. They elected delegates to represent the Indian Mission Conference in the 
contemplated convention to be held in Louisville, Kentucky.—Pp. 40, 41. 

The Georgia Conference discuss the subject fully in their report, pp. 42, 43, 44; 
and on pp. 45, 46, 47 are their resolutions, by which they authorize the Southern or- 
ganization of the Church. . 

The resolutions of the Florida Conference will be found on pp. 47, 48; those of 
the Texas Conference on pp. 49, 50; and those of the Alabama Conference, on 
pp- 50, 51, 52, and 53. ‘There were fifteen or sixteen Southern conferences that 
appointed delegates, who were instructed and recommended to form a Southern or- 
ganization of the Church. They met, and extracts from the journal of their pro- 
ceedings will be found on page 54 of the book from which I have been reading— 
Proofs, No. 2. Perhaps it is proper that I should read the address of Bishop Soule, 
which he delivered to that Convention on the second day of its session, the second 
of May, 1845. 


Uf. 


99 


“J rise on the present occasion to offer a few remarks to this convention of minis- 
ters, under the influence of feelings more solemn and impressive than I recollect ever 
to have experienced before. The occasion is certainly one of no ordinary interest 
and solemnity. I am deeply impressed with a conviction of the important results of 
your deliberations and decisions in relation to that numerous body of Christians and 
Christian ministers you here represent, and to the country at large. And knowing, 
as I do, the relative condition of the vast community where your acts must be exten- 
sively felt, I cannot but feel a deep interest in the business of the convention, both as 
it respects yourselves, and the millions who must be affected by your decisions. 
With such views and feelings, you will indulge me in an expressisn of confident hope 
that all your business will be conducted with the greatest deliberation, and with that 
purity of heart, and moderation of temper, suitable to yourselves, as a body of Chris- 
tian ministers, and to the important concerns which have called you together in this 
city. 

‘“‘ The opinion which I formed at the close of the late General Conference, that the 
proceedings of that body would result in a division of the Church, was not induced 
by the impulse of excitement ; but was predicated of principles and facts, after the 
most deliberate and mature consideration. ‘That opinion I have freely expressed. 
And however deeply I have regretted such a result, believing it to be inevitable, my 
efforts have been made, not to prevent it, but rather that it be attended with the 
least injury, and the greatest amount of good which the case would admit. I was 
not alone in this opinion. A number of aged and influential ministers entertained 
the same views. And, indeed, it is not easy to conceive how any one, intimately 
acquainted with the facts in the case, and the relative position of the North and 
South, could arrive at any other conclusion. Nothing has transpired since the close 
of the General Conference to change the opinion I then formed ; but subsequent 
events have rather confirmed it. In view of the certainty of the issue, and at the 
same time ardently desirous that the two great divisions of the Church might be in 
peace and harmony within their own respective bounds, and cultivate the spirit of 
Christian fellowship, brotherly kindness, and charity for each other, I cannot but 
consider it an auspicious event that the sixteen annual conferences, represented in 
this convention, have acted with such extraordinary unanimity in the measures they 
have taken in the premises. In the Southern conferences which I have attended, I 
do not recollect that there has been a dissenting yoice with respect to the necessity 
of a separate organization ; and although their official acts in deciding the important 
question, have been marked with that clearness and decision which should afford 
satisfactory evidence that they have acted under a solemn conviction of duty to 
Christ, and to the people of their charge, they have been equally distinguished by 
moderation and candour. And as far as I have been informed, all the other confer- 
ences have pursued a similar course. 

“Tt is ardently to be desired that the same unanimity may prevail in the counsels 
of this convention as distinguished, in such a remarkable manner, the views, and de- 
liberations, and decisions of your constituents. When it is recollected that it is not 
only for yourselves, and the present ministry and membership of the conferences 
you represent, that you are assembled on this occasion, but that millions of the 
present race, and generations yet unborn, may be affected, in their most essential 
interests, by the results of your deliberations, it will occur to you how important it is 
that you should ‘ do all things as in the immediate presence of God.’ Let all your 
ae dear brethren, be accompanied with much prayer for that wisdom which is from 
above. 

‘“* While you are thus impressed with the importance and solemnity of the subject 
which has occasioned the convention, and of the high responsibility under which you 
act, I am confident you will cultivate the spirit of Christian moderation and forbear- 
ance ; and that in all your acts you will keep strictly within the limits and provi- 
sions of the ‘Plan of Separation’ adopted by the General Conference with great 
unanimity and apparent Christian kindness. I can have no doubt of the firm 
adherence of the ministers and members of the Church in the conferences you repre- 
sent, to the doctrine, rules, order of government, and forms of worship contained in 
our excellent Book of Discipline. For myself, I stand upon the basis of Methodism 
as contained in this book, and from it I intend never to be removed. I cannot be 
insensible to the expression of your confidence in the resolution you haye unani- 
mously adopted, requesting me to preside over the convention in conjunction with my 


100 


colleagues. And after having weighed the subject with careful deliberation, I have 
resolved to accept your invitation, and discharge the duties of the important trust to 
the best of my ability. My excellent colleague, Bishop Andrew, is of the same 
mind, and will cordially participate in the duties of the chair. 

“‘T am requested to state to the convention, that our worthy and excellent col- 
league, Bishop Morris, believes it to be his duty to decline a participation in the 
presidential duties. He assigns such reasons for so doing as are, in the judgment 
of his colleagues, perfectly satisfactory ; and it is presumed they would be con- 
sidered in the same light by the convention. In conclusion, I trust that all things 
will be done in that spirit which will be approved of God; and devoutly pray that 
your acts may result in the advancement of the Redeemer’s kingdom, and the salva- 
tion of the souls. of men.” 


Bishop Soule then took the chair, and from the record of their proceedings I read 
the followmg :— 


«On motion of J. Early and W. A. Smith, it was 

“« Resolved, That a committee of two members, from each annual conference 
represented in this convention, be appointed, whose duty it shall be to take into con- 
sideration the propriety and necessity of a Southem organization, according to the 
Plan of Separation adopted by the late General Conference, together with the acts 
of the several annual conferences on this subject, and report the best method of 
securing the objects contemplated in the appointment of this convention.’ 

“ Monpay Mornine, May 5.—On motion of Dr. William Winans, it was 

‘*< Resolved, That the Committee on Organization be instructed to inquire whether 
or not anything has transpired, during the past year, to render it possible to main- 
tain the unity of the Methodist Episcopal Church, under the same General Confer- 
ence jurisdiction, without the ruin of Southern Methodism.’ 

“ On motion of Benjamin M. Drake, it was 

“«*« Resolved, ‘That the Committee on Organization be, and are hereby instructed 
to inquire into the propriety of reporting resolutions im case a division should take 
place, leaving the way open for re-union on terms which shall not compromise the 
interests of the Southern, and which shall meet, as far as may be, the views of the 
Northern portion of the Church.’ 

“Dr. William A. Smith and Dr. Lovick Pierce presented the following re- 
solution, which, at their request, was laid on the table, to be taken up on to-morrow 
morning. 

““« Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences in the Southern 
and South-western states, in General Convention assembled, That we cannot sanction 
the action of the late General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the 
subject of slavery, by remaining under’ the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of that body, 
without deep and lasting injury to the interests of the Church and the country ; we, 
therefore, hereby instruct the Committee on Organization, that if, wpon careful ex- 
amination of the whole subject, they find that there is no reasonable ground to hope 
that the Northern majority will recede from their position and give some safe guar- 
antee for the future security of our civil and ecclesiastical rights, they report in 
sat of a separation from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the said General Con- 
erence.’ ‘ 

“ Wrpnespay Mornine, May 14.—The resolution of Dr. Smith was then taken 
up, and after a few remarks in its support by Joseph Boyle and Jesse Green, of the 
Missouri Conference, and Littleton Fowler, of the Texas Conference, was adopted, 
with one dissenting voice. 

“Sarurpay Mornine, May 17.—On motion of John Early, of the Virginia Con- 
ference, the report of the Committee on Organization was taken up, and the conven- 
tion resolved to act on it by yeas and nays—sick and absent members being permitted 
to enter their votes at some subsequent period during the season. 

“The first resolution was read, and on motion of John Early, was adopted as 
follows :— 

““« Be it resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in the slaveholding States, in General Convention assembled, 
That it is right, expedient, and necessary, to erect the annual conferences repre- 
sented in this convention, into a distinct ecclesiastical connexion, separate from the 


101 


jurisdiction of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as at 
present constituted ; and accordingly, we, the delegates of said annual conferences, 
acting under the provisional Plan of Separation adopted by the General Conference 
of 1844, do solemnly declare the jurisdiction hitherto exercised over said annual con- 
ferences, by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, entirely 
dissolved; and that said annual conferences shall be, and they hereby are constituted, 
a separate ecclesiastical connexion, under the provisional Plan of Separation afore- 
said, and based upon the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, compre- 
hending the doctrmes and entire moral, ecclesiastical, and economical rules and 
regulations of said Discipline, except only, im so far as verbal alterations may be 
necessary to a distinct organization, and to be known by the style and title of the 
Metuopist Episcopat Cuurcu, Souru.’—Yeas 94; nays 3. 

“The second resolution was then read, and, on motion of Thomas Crowder, of the 
Virginia Conference, adopted as follows :— : 

“¢ Resolved, That we cannot abandon or compromise the principles of action, 
upon which we proceed to a separate organization in the South; nevertheless, cherish- 
ing a sincere desire to maintain Christian union and fraternal intercourse with the 
Church, North, we shall always be ready, kindly and respectfully, to entertain, and 
duly and carefully consider, any proposition or plan, having for its object the union 
of the two great bodies, in the North and South, whether such proposed union be 
jurisdictional or connexional.’—Yeas, 97; nays, none. 

“The Committee on Organization then presented an additional report, which was 
amended and adopted, in the following form :— 

“<1. Resolved, That this convention request the bishops, presiding at the ensuing 
session of the border conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to in- 
corporate into the aforesaid conferences any societies or stations adjoining the line of 
division, provided such societies or stations, by a majority of the members, according 
to the provisions of the Plan of Separation adopted by the late General Conference, 
request such an arrangement. 

“2. Resolved, That answer 2d of 3d section, chapter Ist of the Book of Discip- 
line, be so altered and amended as to read as follows :— 

“««The General Conference shall meet on the first day of May, in the year of our 
Lord, 1846, in the town of Petersburg, Virginia, and thenceforward in the month of 
April or May, once in four years successively ; and in such place and on such day 
as shall be fixed on by the preceding General Conference, &c. 

“<¢3. Resolved further, That the first answer in the same chapter be altered by 
striking out the word ‘twenty-one,’ and inserting in its place fourteen.’—Yeas, 97; 
nays, none. 

“ Monpay Mornine, May 19.—The Committee on Organization then made an 
additional report, as follews :-— 

“«The Committee on Organization beg respectfully to report the following 
resolutions for adoption by the convention :— 

“1. Resolved, That Bishops Soule and.Andrew be, and they are hereby respect- 
fully and cordially requested by this convention, to unite with and become regular 
and constitutional bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, upon the basis 
of the Plan of Separation adopted by the late General Conference. ' 

©¢2. Resolved, That should any portion of an annual conference on the line of 
separation, not represented in this convention, adhere to the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, according to the Plan of Separation adopted at the late General Con- 
ference, and elect delegates to the General Conference of the Church in 1846, upon 
the basis of representation adopted by this convention, they shall be accredited as 
members of the General Conference. 

“*3. Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed, whose duty it shall be to 
prepare and report to the General Conference of 1846, a revised copy of the present 
Discipline, with such changes as are necessary to conform it to the organization of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Respectfully submitted. 

“¢Joun Harty, Chairman.’ 


“ The first resolution was then adopted :—Yeas, 95; nays, none ; absent, 5.” 


Then follows the adhesion of Bishop Soule, or rather his letter, which it is not 
necessary to read; and a similar letter from Bishop Andrew, both of which may be 


102 


considered as read and in evidence. Neither do'I intend to read the Pastoral 
Address which was prepared by that convention, beginning on page 62; but I wish 
it to be considered as read, as a declaration of the character of the new organization. 
There is another document, beginning on page 67, which, if time would permit, I 
should with pleasure read. It is their manifesto; and able as are the other papers, I 
consider this one of the most able. By this document, which is understood to be 
the production of the pen of the late Bishop Bascom, nearly all the argument on our 
side may be considered as anticipated. It is a very long document, extending from 
page 67 to page 101, and contains a full discussion of the case. I crave your 
Honours’ attention to this report, as being, if nothing else, an argument which sets 
the case in a clear and strong light. 
* The Southern Church having been organized, the bishops—not of the Southern 
but of the Northern Church—met in council on the 2d of July, 1845, in New-York. 
Your Honours will recollect that the organization of the Church, South, was com- 
pleted in May; and in July the bishops met in council, of whose proceedings I will 
read an extract from pp. 101, 102, book of Proofs, No. 2 :— 


“This council met in the city of New-York, July 2d, 1845, and was attended by 
Bishops Hedding, Waugh, Morris, and Janes. Bishop Hamline sent his opinion in 
writing on the points to be acted on by the council, Bishop Soule did not attend, and 
Bishop Andrew, being suspended, was not invited. Besides agreeing on a new plan 
of visitation, the bishops adopted the following resolutions, intended for the govern- 
ment of their own administration :— 

““« 1, Resolved, That the plan reported by the select committee of nine at the last 
General Conference, and adopted by that body, in regard to a distinct ecclesiastical 
connexion, should such a course be found necessary by the annual conferences in the 
slaveholding States, is regarded by us as of binding obligation in the premises, so far 
as our administration is concerned. 

“© ¢2. Resolved, ‘That im order to ascertam fairly the desire and purpose of those 
societies bordering on the line of division, in regard to their adherence to the Church, 
North or South, due notice should be given of the time, place, and object of the 
meeting for the above purpose, at which a chairman and secretary should be ap- 
pointed, and the sense of all the members present be ascertained, and the same be 
forwarded to the bishop who may preside at the ensuing annual conferences; or for- 
ward to such presiding bishop a written request to be recognised and have a preacher 
sent them, with the names of the majority appended thereto. 

«A true copy. Epmunv S. Janes, Sec’y.’” 


Then appears Bishop Soule’s letter of invitation to Bishop Andrew to perform 
episcopal functions, and Bishop Andrew’s reply, accepting the office of bishop im that 
Church. They are merely necessary to show the organization of the Church as an 
episcopal Church. Your Honours will consider them as read for that purpose 

There is then the action of the conferences of Kentucky, Missouri, Holston, and 
‘Tennessee, in 1845, subsequent to the Louisville convention.—P. 108. I will not 
read them, but your Honours will take them as read, showing the completeness of 
its organization. All these documents are of the same character, showing the com- 
pleteness of the organization of the new Church. 

I next refer your Honours to page 117, where you will find this title :— 


“9, The Journal of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, at Petersburgh, Va., in May, 1846, printed. (To be referred to.)” 


There is here a reference to the conference journal, South. It was set up in the 
answer of the defendants, that this suit is not brought by the authority of the Church, 
South. JI therefore refer to the journal of that Conference, to show that this suit was 
authorized. It is a mere formal matter of proof. 


103 


On page 96 of the Journal of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, held in 1846, at Petersburg, in the State of Virginia, will be found 
the following :— 


«The Report of the Committee on Finance, in reference to the appointment of 
commissioners, being taken up, the blank in the fourth resolution, on motion of Dr. 
Smith, was filled with the name of John Early. The report was then adopted, as 
follows, viz. :— 


‘“««The Finance Committee submit their Fourth Report, as follows :— 


“1, Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, South, in General Conference assembled, That three commis- 
sioners be appoinied in accordance with the Plan of Separation adopted by the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, m 1844, to act in concert 
with the commissioners appointed by the said Methodist Episcopal Church, to 
estimate the amount due to the South, according to the aforesaid Plan of Sepa- 
ration ; and to adjust and settle all matters pertaining to the division of the Church 
property and funds, as provided for in the Plan of Separation, with full powers to 
carry into effect the whole arrangement with regard to said division. 

“<< 2. Resolved, That the commissioners of the South shall forthwith notify the 
commissioners and book agents of the Methodist Episcopal Church of their ap- 
poimtment, and of their readiness to adjust and settle the matters aforesaid ; and 
should no such settlement be effected before the session of the General Conference 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1848, said commissioners shall have power 
and authority, for and in behalf of this Conference, to attend the General Conference 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to settle and adjust all questions involving pro- 
perty or funds, which may be pending between the Methodist Episcopal Church 
and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

«3. Resolved, That should the commissioners appointed by this General Confer- 
ence, after proper effort, fail to effect a settlement as above, then, and in that case, 
they shall be, and are hereby authorized, to take such measures as may best secure 
the just and equitable claims of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to the pro- 
perty and funds aforesaid. 

“<¢4. Resolved, That John Early be, and he is hereby authorized, to act as the agent 
or appointee of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in conformity to the Plan of 
Separation, adopted by the General Conference of 1844, to receive, and hold in trust, 
for the use and benefit of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, all property and 
funds of every description which may be paid over to him by the agents of the Me- 
thodist Episcopal Church. 

“<5. Resolved, That the commissioners, appointee, and book-agent, report to the 
next General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

“6, Resolved, That should a vacancy occur in the board of commissioners, or in 
the office of appointee, hereinbefore provided for, by death or otherwise, in the in- 
terim of the General Conference, then, and in that case, the remaining members of 
the board shall have power to fill such vacancy, with the approbation of one or more 
of the bishops. . W. A. Smiru, Chairman.’ ” 


The other documents in this case are also merely formal, being an application of 
our commissioners to their commissioners—page 117 of second of Proofs—dated 
Cincinnati, Ohio, August 25th, 1846; and their reply, dated New-York, October 14, 
1846. Your Honours will see that the Northern commissioners took what appears 
to us to be very strange ground on the subject. They declined having anything to 
do with it. Then the Southern commissioners appeared at Pittsburgh, and addressed 
a communication to the General Conference of 1848, asking for a settlement—page 
124. To this no reply was received. ‘They then addressed another letter, of the 
18th May, 1848—page 125—which letter, and the reply which they received, I 
will read. 


104 


“12. The letter of H. B. Bascom, and others, commissioners, to N. Bangs, and 
others, dated Pittsburgh, May 18th, 1848, and the reply thereto, dated Pittsburgh, 
May 20th, 1848. 

“<< PrrrspurGH, 18th May, 1848. 
«<The undersigned, commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, ap- 
pointed by the General Conference of said Church, in accordance with the Plan of 

Separation adopted by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 

in 1844, would respectfully represent tothe Rev. Nathan Bangs, George Peck, and 

James B. Finley, commissioners on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, that 

it is important their stay in the city should not be prolonged beyond the period neces- 

sary to accomplish, as far as may be found practicable, the objects of their commis- 
sion; and with a view to a correct decision in the case, the undersigned beg leave to 
inquire—Ist. Whether as commissioners appointed by the General Conference of 

1844, to act in concert with a similar board of commissioners in behalf of the Church, 

South, provided for in the Plan of Separation, you regard yourselves as authorized to 

act in the premises, under the authority above, and if so, in what form? 2d. Should 

your answer to this inquiry be in the negative, we would respectfully ask, have you 
anything to propose to us, as commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 

South, designed to carry into effect the provisions of the Plan of Separation, having 

reference to the division of the Church property? Very truly and respectfully, 

“¢H. B. Bascom, 
A. L. P. Green, 
C. B. Parsons. 
“<¢Ruv. N. Banes, Georcr Peck, and Jas. B. Finury.’ 


“<¢PirrspurGH, May 20th, 1848. 
“¢ Rev. Messrs. H. B. Bascom, D.D., A. L. P. Green, and C. B. Parsons :— 

“‘¢ GeNTLEMEN,—The undersigned have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of 
your communication of the 18th mst., and would respectfully reply :— 

“¢], That the conditions upon which their powers, as ‘ commissioners,’ appointed 
by the General Conference at its session of 1844, were made to depend, having failed, 
they have not, and never had, power to act in the matter in question. 

_ 2. In aecordance with the above view, they would respectfully say that they 
have nothing to ‘propose’ to you touching these matters. With sentiments of 
esteem, yours, “<¢ Grorce Peck, 


James B. Finuey.’ ” 


We also produce the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, with a 
view of showing that there is no difference in doctrine, organization, or discipline 
of the Church. There is only one note, I believe, added on the subject of slavery. 
I believe it is not worthy of notice, and yet, perhaps, in fairness I ought to state it. 
T will show it to your Honours afterwards. I need not now detain the Court to 
state it. 

This, your Honours, is the evidence on our part. 


Juper Netson,—Is there any evidence to be offered on the part of the defend- 
ants? i ; 


Mr. Ewinc,—Yes, sir. 
Jupex NEetson,—How long will it occupy? 
Mr. Ewine,—Perhaps we can read it in half an hour, or a little more. 


The Court then adjourned. 





105 


[Nore sy THe Reporter.—As Mr. Lord referred to various documents, pointing 
the Court to the pages where they may be found, and desired that they might be 
considered as read, without consuming the time necessary to read them, there is 
great propriety, in the judgment of the Reporter, in the incorporation of them in this 
report. They are, therefore, appended. ‘The first document to which he referred, 
comprises the report and resolutions from the Committee on Separation, which were 
adopted by the Tennessee Conference.] Second of Proofs, pp. 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. 


“The committee to whom was referred the proposed division of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church into two separate and distinct General Conference jurisdictions, 
and kindred subjects, having had the same under mature consideration, beg leave to 
submit the following :— 

“‘ Apprised as we are, that the actions of the late General Conference, together 
with the entire merits of the proceedings of that body, leading to the contemplated 
separation of the Church, have been fully and fairly presented to our people, and 
that both the ministry and membership within our bounds have, with great solicitude 
and prayerful anxiety, investigated the subject in its various relations, principles, 
and bearings, we deem it entirely inexpedient at present to enter into detail or to 
prepare an elaborate investigation of the very important matters committed to us ; 
therefore your committee present the result of their deliberations to the conference, 
by the offering for your consideration and adoption, the following resolutions :— 

“1. Resolved, That it is the candid and deliberate judgment of this conference, 
that the action of the late General Conference, by which Bishop Andrew was virtually 
deposed, as well as their action in confirming the decision of the Baltimore Con- 
ference in the case of the Rev. F. A. Harding, is not sustained by the Discipline of 
our Church, and that we consider such extra-judicial proceedings as constituting a 
highly-dangerous precedent. 

“«2. That under the great affliction caused by these unfortunate proceedings, we 
did most ardently hope and pray that the calamitous consequences might have been 
averted. But since the only plausible plan of reconciliation, the proposition unani- 
mously recommended by our beloved superintendents, was put down by the majority 
in the late General Conference, we honestly confess we see at present no prospect 
to avoid a separation. 

“3. That we approve the holding a convention of delegates from all the con- 
ferences in the slaveholding States, in the city of Louisville, on the first day of May 
next, agreeably to the recommendation of the Southern and South-Western delegates 
in the late General Conference; and that the ratio of representation proposed by 
said delegates—to wit, one delegate for every eleven members of conference—be, 
and the same is hereby adopted ; and this conference will elect delegates to the pro- 
posed convention upon said basis. 

“4. That should a division be found to be indispensable, the delegates of this 
conference are required to act under the following instruction,—to wit, that the 
Southern and South-western conferences shall not be regarded as a secession from 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, but that they shall be recognised in law, and to all 
intents and purposes, as a co-ordinate branch of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
the United States of America, simply acting under a separate jurisdiction. And, 
furthermore, as we are well satisfied with the Discipline of our Church as it is, this 
conference instruct its delegates not to support or favour any change in said Dis- 
cipline by said convention; except in so far as may be necessary to conform it in its 
economical arrangements to the new organization. 

“«5. That unless we can be well assured that the rights of our ministry and mem- 
bership can be effectually secured according to Discipline against future aggres- 
sion, and full reparation be made for past injury, we shall deem the contemplated 
division unavoidable. 

‘6. That should the proposed convention, representing the annual conferences of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church in the slaveholding States, appointed to assemble 
in the city of Louisville, the first day of May next, proceed to a separate organiza- 
tion, as contingently provided for in the foregoing resolutions, then, and in that 
event, the convention shall be regarded ‘as the regular General Conference, author- 
ized and appointed by the several annual conferences of the Southern division of 


106 


the Church in the United States, as possessing all-the rights and privileges of the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the United States of 
America, and subject to the same constitutional limitations and restrictions. 

“7, That in order to secure the constitutional character and action of the conven- 
tion, as a General Conference proper, should a separate organization take place, the 
ratio of representation, as now found in the second restrictive rule, one for every 
twenty-one, shall prevail and determine the number of constitutional delegates, 
taking and accrediting as such the proper number from the annual conference first 
elected in order; and that the supernumerary delegates be regarded as members of 
the convention to deliberate, but not members of the General Conference proper, 
should the convention proceed to a separate organization in the South. Provided, 
nevertheless, that should any delegate or delegates who would not be excluded from 
the General Conference proper, by the operation of the above regulation, be absent, 
then any delegate or delegates present, not admitted by said regulation as member 
or members of the constitutional General Conference, may lawfully take the seat 
or seats of such absent delegates, upon the principle of selection named above. 

“8. That we do most cordially approve of the course of our delegates in the late 
General Conference, in the premises, and that we tender them our sincere thanks 
for their faithful and independent discharge of duty in a trying crisis. 

“9. That the secretary of this conference be directed to have the foregoing 
preamble and resolutions published in the South-Western Christian Advocate. 

‘* All which is respectfully submitted. 


“FE. Pitts, Joshua Boucher, F. G. Ferguson, G. W. Dye, P. P. Neely, W. D. 
F. Sawrie, Jno. W. Hanner, A. F. Driskill, R. L. Andrews.’’ 


The following resolutions were adopted by the conference :— 

“<« Resolved, That this conference invite the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, to attend the convention at Louisville, Kentucky. 

‘“*« Resolved, That the preacher in charge of each circuit and station, shall lift a 
collection before the first day of April next, to defray the expenses of our delegates to 
the convention at Louisville, Kentucky. The funds so collected shall be handed 
over to the nearest delegate, or forwarded to the editor of the South-Western 
Christian Advocate, and shall be equally distributed among the delegates in proportion 
to their expenses ; and should any surplus accrue, it shall be returned to the conference 
at its next session, and shall be applied as the other conference funds, in making up 
the deficiency of our preachers, &c.’”’ 


On the resolution of the Holston Conference, suggesting a plan of a compromise, 
it was unanimously 

“« Resolved, ‘That sympathizing as we do with our brethren of the Holston Con- 
ference in the feeling of deep regret for the necessity of a separation of the Southern 
portion of our Church from the Northern, and willing as we would be to preserve the 
union of our beloved Church, upon principles safe and just to ourselves and conser- 
vative of the Discipline ; yet, inasmuch as any proposition for a compromise of exist- 
ing difficulties, which might be proposed with any probability of success, should come 
in an authoritative manner from the Northern section of the Church, and believing 
the plan proposed by the Holston Conference, would, if generally adopted by the 
South, utterly fail to meet the object contemplated, therefore we cannot agree to the 
proposition.’ ” 


The proceedings of the Memphis Conference, to which the learned gentleman re- 
ferred, are as follows :— 


‘“« The committee to whom was referred the subject of the division of the Church 
into two separate General Conference jurisdictions, and all matters connected there- 
with, after solemnly and prayerfully deliberating upon the same, present the follow- 
ing report :—Inasmuch as the conference is presumed to be well informed on the 
merits of the subject, we deem it unnecessary to consume time, by entering into an 
extended and argumentative investigation of the various relations, principles, and 
bearings of the same, but proceed at once to offer the following resolutions for the 
action of the conference :— 

“‘ Resolved, 1. That it is the deliberate judgment of this conference, that the ac- 
tion of the late General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, virtually de- 


107 


posing Bishop Andrew, and also their action in affirming the decision of the Baltimore 
Annual Conference in the case of the Rey. F. A. Harding, are not sustained by the 
Discipline of our Church, and that we consider these proceedings as constituting a 
highly-dangerous precedent. 

‘© 2. That we deeply regret the prospect of division growing out of these proceed- 
ings. and do most sincerely and devoutly pray to the great Head of the Church, that 
some effectual means, not inconsistent with the interests of the cause of Christ, or 
the honour of all concerned, may be suggested and devised, by which so great a ca- 
lamity may be averted, and our long-cherished union preserved and perpetuated. 

‘¢ 3. That we approve the holding a convention of delegates from the conferences 
in the slaveholding States, in the city of Louisville, Kentucky, on the first day of 
May next, agreeably to the recommendation of the Southern and South-Western dele- 
gates in the late General Conference ; and that the ratio of representation proposed 
by said delegates—to wit, one delegate for every eleven members of conference—be, 
and the same is hereby adopted ; and that this conference will elect delegates to the 
proposed convention on said basis. 

“4, ‘That should a division be found to be indispensable, the delegates of this con- 
ference are hereby required to act under the followmg instructions, to wit: that the 
Southern and South-Western conferences shall not be regarded as having by such 
division seceded from the Methodist Episcopal Church; but they shall be recognised 
in law, and to all intents and purposes, as a co-ordmate branch of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church in the United States of America, simply acting under a separate juris- 
diction. And further, that being well satisfied with the Discipline of the Church as 
it now is, this conference instructs its delegates not to support or favour any change 
in said Discipline by said convention, only so far as is necessary to perfect a South- 
erm organization. 

‘¢5,. That unless we can be assured that the rights of our ministry and member- 
ship will be effectually secured, according to Discipline, against future aggressions, 
and full reparation be made for past injury, we shall deem the contemplated division 
unavoidable. : 

“6. That should the proposed convention, representing the annual conferences of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church in the slaveholdmg States, appointed to assemble 
at the city of Louisville, on the first day of May, 1845, proceed to a separate organi- 
zation, as contingently provided for in the foregoing resolutions; then, and in that 
event, the convention shall be regarded as the regular General Conference, autho- 
rized and appointed by the several annual conferences of the Southern division of the 
Church, and as possesssing all the rights, powers, and privileges of the General Con- 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and sub- 
ject to the same restrictions, limitations, and restraints. 

“7, That in order to secure the constitutional charaeter and action of the conven- 
tion, as a General Conference proper, should a separate organization take place, the 
ratio of representation as it now stands in the second restrictive rule, one for every 
twenty-one, shall prevail, and determine the constitutional delegates, taking as such 
the proper number from each annual conference, first elected in order, and that the 
remaining delegates be regarded as members of the convention to deliberate, but not 
members of the General Conference proper, should the convention proceed to a sepa- 
rate organization in the South. Provided, nevertheless, that should any delegate or 
delegates who would not be excluded from the General Conference proper, by the 
operation of the foregoing regulation, be absent, then any delegate or delegates pre- 
sent, not admitted by said regulation as a member or members of the constitutional 
General Conference, may lawfully take the seat or seats of such absent delegates upon 
the principles of selection before named. 

“8. That we have witnessed with sorrow and disapprobation, alike the violence 
manifested by some at the South, and the ultraism displayed by others at the North; 
and that we regret exccedingly that any annual conference should have deemed it 
necessary to refuse to concur in the recommendation of the late General Conference 
to alter the sixth restrictive article: nevertheless, we shall entertain for our brethren 
of the North the feeling of Christian kindness and brotherly love. 

“9. That we heartily approve the entire course pursued by our delegates at the 
late General Conference. 

“10. That we cordially invite such of our bishops as may deem it proper, to be 
present at the contemplated convention in Louisville. 


108 


“11. That it be made the duty of each preacher to. take up a public collection in 
every congregation under his charge, for the purpose of defrayimg the expenses of the 
delegates to the convention; and that such collections be taken up previous to the 
first Sabbath in April next, and immediately transmitted to some one of the delegates ; 
and that the delegates be required to report to the next annual conference the sums 
received by them for this purpose, together with the amount expended by them in 
attending said convention. 

$6.2. "That the secretary of this conference be instructed to forward the foregoing 
to the South-Western Christian Advocate for publication, with a request that all other 
Church papers copy. 

“Moses Brock, Joseph Travis, Thomas Smith, M. J. Blackwell, J. T. Baskerville, 
D. J. Allen, B. H. Hubbard, William Pearson, A. T. Scruggs.” 


The Mississippi Conference adopted the following preamble and resolutions :— 


“The committee to whom was referred the subject of the contemplated division 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, have endeavoured to examine the subject care- 
fully, and in a spirit of reliance upon the teachings of the word of God for direction. 

“‘ Your committee can but deplore the existence of such causes as compel the 
Church of our choice to meditate a severance of that union which has so long ex- 
isted, and which, under God, has contributed so efficiently to the spread of Scriptu- 
ral holiness through these lands. But we are fully convinced that justice to our- 
selves, as well as compassion for the slaves, demand an unqualified disapproval of 
the action of the late General Conference—first, in confirming the decision of the 
Baltimore Conference, in the case of Rev. F. A. Harding ; and secondly, in virtually 
suspending Bishop Andrew from the episcopacy, not only without law or usage, but 
in direct contravention of ali law, and in defiance of a resolution adopted by the Gene- 
ral Conference of 1840, which provides, ‘that under the provisional exception of the 
general rule of the Church on the subject of slavery, the simple holding of slaves, or 
mere ownership of slave property, in the States or Territories where the laws do not 
admit of emancipation and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes 
no legal barrier to the election or ordination of ministers to the various grades of of- 
fice known in the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and cannot therefore 
be considered as operating any forfeiture of right in view of such election and ordi- 
nation.’ 

‘« With the abstract question of slavery we are not now concerned, nor do we re- 
gard it as a subject on which the Church has a right to legislate; neither are we 
disposed in this report to state the full extent of our grievances, or to investigate the 
reasons which impose upon us the necessity of planning an amicable separation. 
Your committee deeply regret the injury which may be inflicted upon our beloved 
Zion by the intemperate and unjust denunciation of the whole North by those who 
have occasion to complain of the illegal and oppressive course pursued by the ma- 
jority of the late General Conference, and most earnestly recommend the exercise of 
that charity which ‘suffereth long and is kind.’ As the result of our prayerful exami- 
nation of the subject in all its bearings, we offer the following resolutions for your 
consideration and adoption :— : 

“¢ Resolved, 1. That the decisions of the late General Conference in the cases of 
Rey. F. A. Harding and Bishop Andrew, were unauthorized by the Discipline of the 
Methodist Episeopal Church, and that a tame submission to them upon the part of 
the Church in the slaveholding States, would prevent our access to the slaves, and 
expose us to suspicions destructive to our general usefulness. 

“ Resolved, 2. That as no authorized plan of compromise has been suggested by the 
North, and as all the propositions made by the Southern delegates were rejected, we 
regard a separation as inevitable, and approve the holding of a convention, to meet 
in Louisville, Kentucky, on the first day of May next, agreeably to the recommenda- 
tion of the Southern and South-Western delegates to the late General Conference ; 
and that the ratio of representation proposed by said delegates—to wit, one delegate 
for every eleven members of the annual conferences—be, and the same is hereby 
adopted, and that this conference will elect delegates to the proposed convention 
upon said basis. Provided, however, that if, in the providence of God, any plan of 
compromise, which in the judgment of our delegates will redress our grievances, and 
effectually secure to us the full exercise and peaceable enjoyment of all our disci- 


109 


plinary rights, should be proposed in time to prevent disunion, we will joyfully em- 
brace it. 

“« Resolved, 3. That our delegates to said convention shall be empowered to co- 
operate with the delegates to said convention from the other conferences, in adopting 
such measures as they shall deem necessary for the complete organization of a 
Southern Church, provided that it conform in all its essential features to the Disci- 
pline of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

“ Resolved, 4. ‘That the course pursued by our immediate representatives in the 
late General Conference, was and is approved by us. 

‘¢ Resolved, 5. That the conciliatory spirit evinced by our general superintendents 
entitles them to the unqualified approbation of the whole Church, and that we do 
most cordially invite them to attend the proposed convention. 

‘* All of which is respectfully submitted. 

“PD. O. Shattuck, William H. Watkins, John G. Jones, B. Pipkin, L. Campbell, 
John N. Hamill, A. T. M. Fly, David M. Wiggins, W. G. Gould.” 


 Eighty-one voting concurring in the change of the sixth restrictive ruale—none 
non-concurring.”’ 


“ Resolved, That the first Friday in May next be set apart as a day of special fast- 
ing and prayer for the superintendence and direction of Divine Providence, with 
regard to our Church difficulties, that the delegates may act so as to bring the 
greatest glory to God and the most good to his Church.” 


“The committee to whom was referred the resolutions of the Holston Confer- 
ence, have had the same under consideration, and although we hold ourselves in 
readiness to accept any plan of pacification which obliterates the distinction between 
Northern and Southern Methodists, we do not regard the resolution of the Holston 
Conference as sanctioned by the North, or practicable in itself. Therefore, 

“ Resolved, That this conference do not concur. 

“D. O. Shattuck, Willlam Hamilton Watkins, John G. Jones, B. Pipkin, L. 
Campbell, J. N. Hamill, A. T. M. Fly, D. M. Wiggins, Wm. G. Gould.” 


‘“‘ Seventy-three non-concurring—none concurring.” 
The following report and resolutions were adopted by the Arkansas Conference :— 


‘The committee to whom were referred the several subjects connected with the 
prospective division of the Methodist Episcopal Church, have had the same under 
calm and prayerful consideration, and beg leave to present the following as the result 
of their honest deliberations. 

“‘ Being well convinced that the members of this body have not been inattentive 
to the proceedings of the General Conference, and that they have not failed to derive 
some information from the numerous addresses and communications that have ap- 
peared in our periodicals, your committee have not been disposed to waste their time, 
nor insult your judgments, by detailing the many circumstances, which, were you 
differently situated, would require amplification,—they, therefore, present to your 
minds for consideration and action, the subjoined resolutions :— 

“1. Resolved, That it is the decided opinion of this conference, that the Disci- 
pline of the Methodist Episcopal Church does not sustain the action of the late 
General Conference in the eases of Rev. F. A. Harding and Bishop Andrew. 

“2. Resolved, That we approve the suggestions of the bishops, as well as the 
request of several Southern delegates, which contemplated the postponing of the 
action of the General Conference, until the wishes of the whole Church could be 
consulted. ¥ 

‘<3. Resolved, That, as we see no probability that reparation will be made for past 
injuries, and no security given that the rights and privileges of the ministry and 
membership in the slaveholding conferences will be equally respected, we believe it 
is the imperative duty, if not the only alternative, of the South, to form a separate 
organization. Nevertheless, should honourable and satisfactory propositions for pa- 
cification be made by the North, we shall expect our delegates to favour the perpe- 
tuation of the union. 

“4. Resolved, That we approve the holding of a convention of delegates from the 
conferences in the slaveholding States, in the city of Louisville, Kentucky, on the 
first day of May, 1845, agreeably to the recommendation of the delegates from the 
Southern and South-Western conferences, in the late General Conference. 


110 


“5. Resolved, That should the proposed convention, representing the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in the slaveholding States, appointed to assemble at Louisville, Ken- 
tucky, the first day of May, 1845, proceed to a separate organization, as contingently 
provided for in the foregoing resolutions, then, in that event, the convention shall be 
regarded as the regular General Conference authorized and appointed by the several 
annual conferences in the Southern division of the Church, and as possessing all the 
rights, powers, and privileges of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the United States of America, and subject to the same restrictions, limi- 
tations, and restraints. 

“6. Resolved, That in order to secure the constitutional character and action of 
the convention as a General Conference proper, should a separate organization take 
place, the ratio of representation, as now found in the second restrictive rule, one for 
every twenty-one, shall prevail and determine the constitutional delegates, taking 
and accrediting as such the proper number from each annual conference, first elected 
in order; and that the supernumerary delegates be regarded as members of the con- 
vention to deliberate, but not members of the General Conference proper, should the 
convention proceed to a separate organization in the South. Provided, nevertheless, 
that should any delegate or delegates who would not be excluded from the General 
Conference proper, by the operation of the above regulation, be absent, then any 
delegate or delegates present, not admitted by said regulation as a member or mem- 
bers of the constitutional General Conference, may lawfully take the seats of such 
absent delegates, upon the principle of selection named above. 

“7, Resolved, That, as we are well satisfied with the Discipline of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church as it is, we hereby instruct our delegates to said convention not to 
favour any change therein. 

“8. Resolved, That, though we feel ourselves aggrieved, and have been wounded, 
without cause, in the house of our friends, we have no disposition to impute wrong 
motives to the majority in the late General Conference, and no inclination to endorse 
those vindictive proceedings had in some portions of the South, believing it to be the 
duty of Christians, under all circumstances, to exercise that charity which beareth all 
things. 

9, Resolved, That the preachers take up collections on their several circuits and 
stations, at an early period, and hand the money collected to their presiding elders, 
that the delegates may receive the whole amount collected before they shall be re- 
quired to start for Louisville. 

“10. Resolved, That we tender our warmest thanks to our representatives in the Jate 
General Conference, for the stand which they took, with others, in defence of our 
Disciplinary rights. 

“11. Resolved, That the bishops generally be, and they hereby are, requested, 
if it be congenial with their feelings, to attend the convention at Louisville. 

‘© 12. Resolved, That we recommend to our people the observance of the first of 
May next as a day of humiliation and prayer, that the Divine presence may attend 
the deliberations of the convention. 

“John Harrell, Fountain Brown, J. B. Annis, Jacob Custer, Alexander Avery, 
J. F. Truslow.”’ 


The Virginia Conference adopted the following preamble and resolutions :— 


“ The committee to whom was referred the resolutions of the late General Con- 
ference, recommending to all the annual conferences at their first approaching ses- 
sions, to authorize a change of the sixth restrictive article, so that the first clause 
shall read, ‘ They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book Concern nor of the 
Chartered Fund to any purpose, other than the travelling, supernumerary, superan- 
nuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children, and to such other 
purposes as may be determined on by the votes of two-thirds of the members of the 
General Conference,’—and to whom was also referred the Address of the Southern 
delegates in the late General Conference, recommending a Southern Convention, to 
be held in Louisville, Kentucky, on the first day of May, 1845; together with the 
proceedings of various primary and quarterly conference meetings within the bounds 
of the Virginia Conference on the subject of a separation from the ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, beg leave 
to report :— 

“That, having maturely considered these subjects, they do not deem it necessary 


1il 


to present an argument upon the various topics submitted to them; but that the 
duty assigned them will probably be more satisfactorily accomplished in the following 
series of resolutions, namely :— 


“ Resolved, 1. That we concur in the recommendation of the late General Con- 
ference to change the sixth restrictive article of the Discipline of our Church. 

“ Resolved, 2. ‘That, from the ample sources of information before your com- 
mittee, in numerous primary meetings, which have been held in various charges 
within our pastoral limits, and the proceedings of quarterly meeting conferences, 
which we have the most sufficient reason to regard as a fair and full exponent of the 
mind and will of the membership upon the subject of the action of the recent General 
Conference, and the propriety of division,—we are of opinion, that it is the mind of 
the laity of the Church, with no exception sufficient to be regarded as the basis of 
action, that, whilst they seriously deprecate division, considered relatively, and most 
earnestly wish that some ground of permanent union could have been found, they see 
no alternative, and therefore approve of a peaceable separation in the present circum- 
stances of our condition; and in this opinion and this determination your committee 
unanimously concur. 

“ Resolved, 3. That we concur in the recommendation of the Southern delegates in 
the late General Conference, that there be a Southern Convention, to be held in 
Louisville, Kentucky, on the first day of May, 1845; and in the objects of this con- 
vention, as are contemplated in the address of the Southern delegates. 

“ Resolved, 4. That while we do not propose to dissolve our connexion with the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, but only with the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, we are, therefore, entitled to our full proportion of all the rights 
and privileges appertaining to the property of the Church. Nevertheless, our dele- 
gates to the convention to be held in Louisville, Kentucky, in May, 1845, are hereby 
instructed not to allow the question of property to enter into the calculation whether 
or not we shall exist as a separate organization. 

‘ Resolved, 5. That the action of the late General Conference in the case of 
Bishop Andrew, was in violation of the provisional rule of the Discipline on the sub- 
ject of slavery, and in derogation of the dignity and authority of the episcopal office : 
it was, therefore, equally opposed to the rights of the Southern portion of the Church, 
and to those of the incumbents of the episcopal office. But more than this: it was 
an effort to accomplish, by legislative action, what it was only competent for them 
to do, if at all, by regular judicial process : the very attempt was an acknowledgment 
that there was no rule of Discipline, under which he could either be deposed or cen- 
sured, and that the General Conference, being unrestrained by the authority of law, 
was supreme. ‘Thus, both the episcopal office and its incumbents were taken from 
under the protection of the constitutional restriction, and the provisional rule of Dis- 
cipline, by which it was made a co-ordinate branch of the government, and placed 
at the caprice of a majority, which claims that its mere will is the law of the 
Church. 

“ Bishop Andrew, therefore, in refusing to resign his office, or otherwise yield to 
this unwarranted assumption of authority on the part of the General Conference, 
has taken a noble stand upon the platform of constitutional law, in defence of the 
episcopal office and the rights of the South, which entitles him to the cordial appro- 
bation and support of every friend of the Church; and we hereby tender him a 
unanimous expression of our admiration of his firmness in resisting the misrule of a 
popular majority. 

“ Resolved, 6. That we cordially approve the course of the Southern and South- 
Western delegates of the late General Conférence, in resisting with so much con- 
stancy and firmness the encroachments of the majority upon the rights of the South, 
and for so faithfully warning them against the tendency of those measures, 
which we fear do inevitably draw after them the dissolution of our ecclesiastical 
union. 


“John Early, Thomas Crowder, jr., Wm. A. Smith, Abram Penn, George W. 
Nolley, Anthony Dibrell, H. B. Cowles, D. 8S. Doggett, Jos. H. Davis.” 


«The recommendation to change the sixth restrictive article was concurred in— 
eighty-one in favour, and none against it, and the whole report of the committee was 
unanimously adopted by the conference.” 


112 


The North Carolina Conference adopted the following report and resolutions :— 


«“'The committee to whom the resolution of the late General Conference, respect- 
ing the alteration of the sixth restrictive rule, the report of the select Committee of 
Nine, on the declaration of the Southern delegates, and the reports of numerous vo- 
luntary meetings, both of ministers and people, within the bounds of North Carolina 
Conference, were referred, beg leave to report :— 

“Your committee deeply regret the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
which the course of the majority in the late General Conference renders not only 
necessary but inevitable. ‘The unity of the Church, so long the boast and praise of 
Methodism, was a feature greatly admired, and more than esteemed by Southern 
Methodists. For its promotion and preservation they were willing to surrender any- 
thing but principle—vital principle. This they could not do !—this they durst not 
do! The course of the late General Conference demanded a submission on the 
part of the ministers in the slaveholding conferences, which the Discipline did not 
require, and the institutions of the South absolutely forbade. To have yielded, 
therefore, would have opened a breach in Methodism wholly subversive of the 
Church, and greatly mischievous to the civil community—to have yielded would 
have been ruin! This, therefore, they refused to do; absolutely refused! With 
the Discipline in their hands, sustained and upheld by it, they protested against the 
proceedings of the majority, with an unfaltermg and manly voice, declaring them to 
be not only unauthorized, but unconstitutional. The protestation, however, just and 
legal as it was, authorized and borne out by the Discipline, was altogether unavailing. 
Nothing was left for the South to do, but to pass from under the jurisdiction of so 
wayward a power, to the regulations and government of our old, wholesome, and 
Scriptural Discipline. This, we sorrow when we say it, has opened a great gulf—we 
fear an impassable gulf—between the North and the South. This consolation, how- 
ever, if no other, they have—the good Book of Discipline, containing the distinctive 
features of the Methodist Episcopal Church, shall still lie on the South side. Com- 
pelled by cireumstances which could neither be alleviated nor controlled—which 
neither the entreaties of kindness nor the force of truth could successfully resist—we 
hesitate not to decide on being forever separate from those whom we not only esteem, 
but love. Better far that we should suffer the loss of union, than that thousands, yea 
millions of souls should perish. 

‘‘From the reports of quarterly meeting conferences and numerous voluntary 
meetings within the bounds of the North Carolina Conference, both of ministers and 
people, we feel assured that it is the mind of our people and preachers fully to sustain 
the action of the Southern and South-Western delegates, as set forth in the Declara- 
tion and Protest ; and therefore, 

“1. Resolved, That the time has come for the ministers of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church in the slayveholding States, to refuse to act in union with the North. 

2. Resolved, That we concur in the proposed alteration of the sixth restrictive 
rule of the Discipline. 

“3. Resolved, That we concur in the recommendation to hold a convention in 
Louisville, Kentucky, in May, 1845, 

“4, Resolved, That this conference elect delegates to said convention according to 
the basis of representation recommended. 

“5. Resolved, That the action of the late General Conference, in the case of 
Bishop Andrew, was a violation of the rule of Discipline on the subject of slavery, 
and derogatory to the dignity of the episcopal office, by throwing it from under the 
protection. of law, and exposing it to the reproach and obloquy of misrule and lawless 
power. The bishop, therefore, acted justly and honourably in resisting such action, 
and declining obedience to the resolution of said conference ; and for thus guarding 
and respecting the rights of the South, both of ministers and people, he is entitled to 
our highest regards. 

“All which is respectfully submitted. 


“HAG, Leigh, S. 8. Bryant, James Jameson, P. Doub, Bennet T. Blake, James 
Reid, D. B. Nicholson, R. J. Carson, William Carter.” 


“The above report was unanimously adopted by the conference. On the question 
of concurrence in altering the sixth restrictive rule, the vote was: ayes 58— 
nays none. S. S. Bryant, 

Secretary of North Carolina Annual Conference.” 


118 


The following preamble and resolutions were adopted by the South Carolina 
Conference :— 


“The committee to whom was referred the general subject of the difficulties 
growing out of the action of the late General Conference on the case of Bishop 
Andrew and brother Harding ; and, in particular, the report of the select committee 
on the Declaration of the Southern and South-Western delegates of the General Con- 
ference, as adopted by the conference, and the proceedings of numerous quarterly 
conferences, and other meetings, in all parts of our annual conference district ; re- 
spectfully offer the following report :— ; 

“Tt appears to your committee, on the evidence of numerous documents, and the 
testimony of the preachers, in open conference, that in all the circuits and stations of 
this conference district, the people have expressed their minds with respect to the 
action of the General Conference, and the measures proper to be adopted in conse- 
quence of that action. Resolutions to that effect have been adopted by the quar- 
terly conferences of all the circuits and stations, without any exception; and in 
many, perhaps in most of them, by other meetings also, which have been called ex- 
pressly for the purpose ; and in some of them, by meetings held at every preaching- 
place where there was a society. And on all these occasions, there has been but one 
voice uttered—one opinion expressed—from the sea-board to the mountains, as to the 
unconstitutionality and injurious character of the action in the case above-named. 
the necessity which that action imposes for a separation of the Southern from the 
Northern conferences, and the expediency and propriety of holding a convention at 
Louisville, Kentucky, and of your sending delegates to it, agreeably to the proposi- 
tion of the Southern and South-Western delegates of the late General Conference. 

‘“« Your committee, also, have made diligent inquiry, both out of conference and 
by calling openly in conference, for information from the preachers, as to the num- 
ber, if any, of local preachers, or other official members, or members of some stand- 
ing among us, who should have expressed, in the meetings or in private, a different 
opinion from that which the meetings have proclaimed. And the result of this inquiry 
has been, that, in the whole field of our conference district, one mdividual only has 
been heard to express himself doubtfully, as to the expediency of a separate jurisdic- 
tion for the Southern and South-Western conferences ; not even one as to the charac- 
ter of the General Conference action. Nor does it appear that this unanimity of the 
people has been brought about by popular harangues, or any schismatic efforts of any 
of the preachers, or other influential persons ; but that it has been as spontaneous as 
universal, and from the time that the final action of the General Conference became 
known, at every place. Your committee state this fact thus formally, that it may 
correct certain libellous imputations which have been cast on some of our senior min- 
isters, in the Christian Advocate and Journal; as well as for the evidence which it 
furnishes of the necessity of the measures which are in progress for the relief of the 
Church in the South and South-West. 

“Your committee also consider it due to state, that it does not appear that the 
action of the General Conference in the cases of the bishop and of brother Harding, 
proceeded of ill-will, as of purpose to oppress us; nor of any intended disregard of 
the authority of the Scriptures or of the Discipline, as if to effect the designs of a 
politico-religious faction, without warrant of the Scriptures, and against the Disci- 
pline and peace of the Church: but they consider that action as having been produced 
out of causes which had their origin in the fanatical abolitionism of Garrison aud 
others ; and which, being suffered to enter and agitate the Church, first in New-Eng- 
land, and afterwards generally at the North, worked up such a revival of the anti- 
slavery spirit as had grown too strong for the restraints of either Scripture or Disci- 
pline, and too general through the Eastern, Northern, and North-Western conferences 
to be resisted any longer by the easy, good-natured prudence of the brethren repre- 
senting those conferences in the late General Conference. Pressed beyond their 
strength, whether little or much, they had to give way; and reduced (by the force of 
principles which, whether by their own fault or not, had obtained a controlling power) 
to the alternative of breaking up the Churches of their own conference districts, or 
adopting measures which they might hardly persuade themselves could be endured 
by the South and South-West, they determined on the latter. The best of men may 
have their judgments perverted; and it is not wonderful that, under such stress of 
circumstances, the majority should have adoped a new construction of both Scripture 


114 


and Discipline, and persuaded themselves, that in pacifying the abolitionists, they 
were not unjust to their Southern brethren. Such, however, is unquestionably the 
character of the measures they adopted; and which the Southern Churches cannot 
possibly submit to, unless the majority who enacted them could also have brought us 
to a conviction that we ought to be bound by their judgment, against our consciences 
and calling of God, and the warrant of Scripture, and the provisions of the Discipline. 
But while we believe that our paramount duty in our calling of God, positively for- 
hids our yielding the Gospel in the Southern States, to the pacification of abolitionism 
inthe Northern; and the conviction is strong and clear in our own minds, that we 
have both the warrant of Scripture and the plain provisions of the Discipline to sus- 
tain us; we see no room to entertain any proposition for compromise, under the late 
action in the cases of Bishop Andrew and brother Harding, and the principles avowed 
for the maintenance of that action, short of what has been shadowed forth in the re- 
port of the select committee which we have had under consideration, and the mea- 
sures recommended by the Southern and South-Western delegates at their meeting 
after the General Conference had closed its session. 

‘Your committee do, therefore, recommend the adoption of the following reso- 
lutions :-— 

“1. Resolved, That it is necessary for the annual conferences in the slayeholding 
States and Territories, and in Texas, to unite ina distinct ecclesiastical connexion, 
agreeably to the provisions of the report of the select committee of nine of the late 
General Conference, adopted on the 8th day of June last. 

“2, Resolved, That we consider and esteem the adoption of the report of the 
aforesaid committee of nine, by the General Conference, (and the more for the una- 
nimity with which it was adopted,) as involying the most solemn pledge which could 
have been given by the majority to the minority and the Churches represented by 
them, for the full and faithful execution of all the particulars specified and intended 
in that report. 

‘3. Resolved, ‘That we approve of the recommendation of the Southern dele- 
gates, to hold aconvention in Louisville, on the lst day of May next, and will elect 
delegates to the same on the ratio recommended in the address of the delegates to 
their constituents. 

“4, Resolved, That we earnestly request the bishops, one and all, to attend the 
said conyention. 

“5, Resolved, That while we do not consider the proposed convention compe- 
tent to make any change or changes in the Rules of Discipline, they may neverthe- 
less indicate what changes, if any, are deemed necessary under a separate jurisdic- 
tion of the Southern and South-Western conferences. And that it is necessary for 
the convention to resolve on, and provide for, a separate organization of these con- 
ferences under a General Conference to be constituted and empowered in all respects 
for the government of these conferences, as the General Conference hitherto has been 
with respect to all the annual conferences—according to the provisions and intentions 
of the late General Conference. 

“6. Resolved, That as, in common with all our brethren of this conference dis- 
trict, we have deeply sympathized with Bishop Andrew in his afflictions, and believe 
him to have been blameless in the matter for which he has suffered, so, with them, 
we affectionately assure him of our approbation of his course, and receive him as not 
the less worthy, or less to be honoured in his episcopal character, for the action 
which has been had in his case. 

“7. Resolved, That we recognise in the wisdom and prudence, the firmness and 
discretion, exhibited in the course of Bishop Soule, during the General Conference— 
as well as in former instances, wherein he has proved his devotion to the great prin- 
ciples of constitutional right in our Church—nothing more than was to be expected 
from the bosom friend of Asbury and M’Kendree. 

8. Resolved, That, in common with the whole body of our people, we approve 
of the conduct of our delegates, both during the General Conference, and sub- 
sequently. 

“9. Resolved, That we concur in the recommendation of the late General Con- 
ference for the change of the sixth article of the restrictive rules in the book of Dis- 
cipline, so as to allow an equitable pro rata division of the Book Concem. 

“ W. Capers, W. Smith, H. Bass, N. Talley, H. A. C. Walker, C. Betts, S. W. 
Capers, 8. Dunwody, R. J. Boyd, Committee.” 

g* 


115 


The Indian Mission Conference adopted the following resolutions :— 


“The committee to whom was referred the action of the late General Conference 
relating to an amicable division of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United 
States, beg leave to report the following resolutions for adoption by the confer- 
ence :— 

“1. Resolved, That we concur in the proposed alteration in the sixth restrictive 
article of the Discipline. 

“2. Resolved, That we approve of the course pursued by the minority of the late 
General Conference. 

“3. Resolved, 'That we elect delegates to represent the Indian Mission Conference 
in the contemplated convention to be held in Louisville, Kentucky, in May next. 

“4. Resolved, That this conference do deeply deplore the necessity for division 
of any kind in the Methodist Episcopal Church; and that we will not cease to send 
up our prayers to Almighty God for his gracious interposition, and that he may 
guide the affairs of the Church to a happy issue. 

“J. C, Berryman, Chairman.” 


“The above report having been read, was taken up section by section, and dis- 
posed of as follows :—The first resolution was adopted, ayes 14; nays 1. The second 
resolution was adopted, ayes 11; nays3; declined voting, 4. The third resolution 
was adopted, ayes 16. The fourth resolution was adopted, ayes 17. ‘The preamble 
and resolutions were then adopted by the conference as a whole. 

«The conference then proceeded, in accordance with the third resolution, to elect 
delegates to attend the proposed convention in Louisville, in May next. On count- 
ing the votes, it appeared that the whole number of votes given was twenty-one, of 
which number William H. Goode had received twenty, Edward T. Peery eighteen, 
seattering four. Whereupon, W. H. Goode and E. T. Peery, having received a 
majority of all the votes given, were declared duly elected. D. B. Cumming was 
then elected reserved delegate. 

‘“‘The following resolutions were on the next day unanimously adopted, at the re- 
quest of the delegates elect :— 

“« ¢ Resolved, That in view of the condition of the Church, at the present trying 
crisis, the members of this conference will, when practicable, as near as may be, at 
the hour of twilight, in the evening of each day, until the close of the approaching 
convention at Louisville, meet each other at a throne of grace, and devoutly implore 
the blessing of God upon our assembled delegates in the discharge of their important 
duties. 

“ « Resolved, That the Friday preceding the opening of said convention, be set 
apart as a day of fasting and supplication to Almighty God for the continued unity, 
peace, and prosperity of the Methodist Episcopal Church; and that our members 
throughout this conference be requested to join us in the devotions of that day. 

‘“ ¢Wn. H. Goons, 
aT? Ptarys? 


The following preamble and resolutions were unanimously adopted by the Georgia 
Conference :— ) 


“The committee appointed to take into consideration the difficulties of the Church, 
as growing out of the action of the General Conference in the case of Bishop An- 
drew, and to submit some recommendations to the annual conference for their adop- 
tion, beg leave to report :— . 

“ The action of the majority in the last General Conference of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, in the cases of Bishop Andrew and the Rey. Mr. Harding, has rendered 
it indispensable that the conferences, within whose limits slavery exists, should cease 
to be under the jurisdiction of that body. They must either abandon the people col- 
lected under their ministry, and committed to their pastoral care, and the vast and 
widening field of missionary labour among the slaves—a field to which their attention 
is imperatively called by their sympathies as Christians, their sense of ministerial 
obligation as preachers of the Gospel, and their interests and duties as citizens—or 
they must live under the control of an ecclesiastical body, separate and distinct from, 
and independent of, the conferences lying within the States and Territories where 
slavery is not allowed by law. In view of the relations before stated, that distinct 


116 


organization is required by a necessity strict and absolute, and upon that issue we 
place it, before the Church and the world. ‘The exigence which brings it upon us, 
arose, not out of our acts or designs; no collateral considerations of expedience 
abated our zeal in withstanding it ; no collateral issues upon points involved, affected 
our determination to maintain the unity of the Church under one organization as 
heretofore existing ; no pride of opinion, speculative differences, nor personal mo- 
tives, have conducted us to this conclusion. We did not seek to effect any changes 
in the doctrine or Discipline of our Church; we did not ask any boon at the hands 
of the General Conference, nor any exemption from the operation of the laws which 
were common to the whole Connexion; and whatever consequences, affecting the 
Church or the civil community, may result from our movement, we confidently look 
for acquittal to the judgment of posterity, and the decision of the sober and unpreju- 
diced among our contemporaries. ‘ 
“The General Conference violated the law of the Church: first, by confirming 
the decision of the Baltimore Conference, suspending the Rev. Mr. Harding from his 
connexion with that conference as a travelling preacher therein, because he would 
not give freedom to slaves, which by the laws of the land he could not manumit ; 
and secondly, by passing a resolution intended to inhibit Bishop Andrew from the 
exercise of his episcopal functions for the same reasons; in both cases contrary to 
the express provisions of the Discipline, which allows preachers to hold slaves 
wherever they are not permitted by the laws of the land to enjoy freedom when 
manumitted ; and in both cases striking an effective blow at the fundamental principle 
of the economy of Methodism, as it destroys that general itinerancy of the preachers, 
which is its most distinguished peculiarity ; for under their decision, preachers hold- 
ing slaves in conferences where by the law of the Discipline they are allowed so to 
do, may not be transferred to conferences within whose limits slavery does not exist. 
‘‘ By the same decision, both preachers and lay-members holding slaves are thrown 
into an odious and dishonoured caste, the first deprived of office therefor, and the 
religious character of both impeached, and thrown under suspicion thereby ; to which 
must be added, as an evil not lightly to be regarded, nor slightly overlooked, that 
in connexion with the fanatical movements of abolitionists in the North, East, and 
West, it is well fitted to excite slaves to disaffection and rebellion, making it impera- 
tive upon governments and citizens to prohibit all communication between slaves and 
preachers, who either teach such doctrine, or impliedly admit it to be true by sub- 
mitting to such dishonour and deprivation. Secondly. That in the case of Bishop 
Andrew, the General Conference have violated the Discipline of the Church and in- 
vaded personal rights, which are secured by the laws of every enlightened nation, if 
not by the usages of every savage people on earth. They tried and sentenced Bishop 
Andrew without charges preferred, or a cognizable offence stated. If it is even ad- 
mitted that they intended to charge him with ‘improper conduct,’ as a phrase used 
in the Discipline to embrace every class of offences for which a bishop is amenable 
to the General Conference, and on conviction liable to be expelled, they did not for- 
mally prefer that charge ; if they intended to specify his ‘ connexion with slavery,’ as 
the substantive offence under that charge, a ‘ connexion with slavery’ is not a cogni- 
zable offence under any law of our Church, written or unwritten, statutory or prescrip- 
tive, and the only ‘connexion with slavery’ attempted to be established in his case, 
is expressly permitted by the Discipline in section 10th, part 2d, on slavery. If they 
claimed the right to declare in their legislative capacity, that ‘ such a connexion with 
slavery’ was an offence in a bishop, they could only extend it to him retrospectively 
by ex post facto enactment, and even then it was not promulgated until the very mo- 
ment in which they pronounced his sentence by a majority vote. But we cannot 
admit that the framers of our Discipline ever intended to subject a bishop to the 
monstrous injustice of being liable to be expelled by the General Conference, exercis- 
ing original jurisdiction, for an impropriety short of immorality or official delinquency, 
whilst they so cautiously secured his official and personal rights in all cases where 
that body has appellate cognizance of charges for positive immoralities ; and we are 
confident that a fair and rational construction of the 4th and 5th questions, and their 
answers in the 4th section of the Ist chapter of the Discipline, will make ‘improper 
conduct,’ in the answer to the 4th question, and ‘immorality,’ in the 5th, descriptive 
of the same class of offences in the mind of the lawmaker, who could never have 
intended to subject that venerable officer to expulsion for offences so light, that they 
could not be considered immoralities or official delinquencies, and so entirely depend- 


117 


ent for their very existence upon the caprice or varying notions of every General 
Conference, that they could not either be classified or designated. 

‘“‘ The foregoing views we consider the embodiment of public opinion throughout 
our conference. The sentiments of our people in primary meetings, in quarterly 
conferences, as expressed in the most solemn forms, sustain the course of our delega- 
tion in the General Conference, and approve and even demand an organization which 
shall transfer the slaveholding conferences from the jurisdiction of the North. The 
unanimity of the people we verily believe to be without a parallel in the history of 
Church action, and therefore feel ourselves perfectly justified in recommending te 
your body the adoption of the following resolutions, viz :— 

“1. Resolved, 'That we will elect delegates to the convention to be held in Louis- 
ville, in Kentucky, on the 1st of May next, upon the basis of representation proposed 
and acted on by the other conferences ; viz., one delegate for every eleven members 
of our conference. 

“2. Resolved, That our delegates be instructed to co-operate with the delegates 
from the other Southern and South-Western conferences, who shall be represented in 
the convention, in effectmg the organization of a General Conference, which shall 
embrace those annual conferences, and in making all necessary arrangements for its 
going into operation, as soon as the actsof the said convention shall have been 
reported by the several delegations to their constituents, and accepted by them, ac- 
cording to such arrangements as may be made by the convention for carrying the 
same into effect. 

‘<3. Resolved, That our delegates be instructed to use all prudent precautions te 
secure that portion of the Book Concern and Chartered Fund of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, to which the annual conferences represented in the convention, shall 
be unitedly entitled, and all the property to which the several annual conferences are 
entitled to them severally ; and that to this end, they be requested to obtain the 
written opinions of one or more eminent lawyers; but that m the event they must 
either abandon the property, or remain under the jurisdiction ef the General Confer- 
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church, constituted as it now is, they be left to the 
exercise of a sound discretion in the premises. 

“4. Resolved, 'That our delegates make a report to this body at its next session, 
of all their acts and domgs in the aforesaid convention, and this body shall not be 
bound by any arrangements therein made, until after it shall have accepted and ap- 
proved them in conference assembled. 

“5. Resolved, ‘That our delegates be, and they are hereby instructed not to agree 
to any alterations im the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, but that the 
Discipline adopted under the new organization, shall be that known and recognised 
as the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, with such 
modifications only as are necessary formally to adapt it to the new organization. 

“6. Resolved, 'That we consider ourselves as an integral part of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in the United States, and that we have done no act, ner do we 
authorize any act to be done in our name, by which our title to be so considered shall 
be forfeited, unless in the event contemplated in the last clause of the third resolution 
it becomes necessary so to do. 

“7. Resolved, That we highly appreciate the devotion of our venerable senior 
bishop to the constitution and Discipline of the Church, and his uncompromising 
firmness in maintaining both the one and the other, and hereby assure him of our in- 
creased confidence and affection. 

“8. Resolved, ‘That our beloved Bishop Andrew has endeared himself to the 
preachers and people of the Southern Church, by resisting the constitutional dictation 
of the majority of the late General Conference, and that we cordially approve his 
whole action in the case, and welcome him to the unrestricted exercise of his episco- 
pal functions among us. 

“9. Resolved, That the course of our delegates in the trying circumstances by 
which they were surrounded during the last session of the General Conference, meets 
our entire approbation. 

“10. Resolved, That we concur in the alteration of the sixth restrictive rule, as 
recommended by the resolution of the General Conference. 

“11. Resolved, That we do not concur with the Holston Conference in the reso- 
lution proposed by them, regarding it as tending only to embarrass the action of the 
convention, without the slighest promise of good to either division of the Church. 


118 


“TL. Pierce, Thomas. Samford, Ignatius A. Few, Samuel Anthony, Isaac Boring, 
George F. Pierce, Joan W. Talley, W. D. Matthews, J. B. Payne, Josiah Lewis.” 


‘Tt was further resolved, that the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church be 
requested to attend the convention of Southern delegates to be held at Louisville in 
May next.” 


The following report was unanimously adopted by the Florida Conference :— 


«“ The committee to whom was referred the subject of the action of the late Gene- 
ral Conference in the cases of Bishop Andrew and F. A. Harding ; also the report 
of the committee of nine in the late General Conference on the subject of a peace- 
able separation of the Church ; also the resolution of the Holston Conference on the 
same subject, submit the following resolutions, to wit :— 

“1. Resolved, 'That we disapprove of the course of the late General Conference 
m the cases of Bishop Andrew and F. A. Harding. 

«2. That we heartily approve the proposed Plan of Separation as adopted by the 
General Conference, under which the Southern and South-Western conferences are 
authorized to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connexion. 

‘© 3. That we are satisfied that the peace and success of the Church in the South 
demand a separate and distinct organization. 

‘4. That we commend and admire the firm and manly eourse pursued by Bishop 
Andrew under the trials he has had to encounter, and that we still regard him as 
possessing all his episcopal functions. 

‘*5. That the course pursued by our venerable senior superintendent, Bishop 
Soule, in defending the Discipline of our Church, has served but to endear him tous 
more and more, and we heartily approve his course in inviting Bishop Andrew to 
assist him in his episcopal visitations. 

«6. That we tender our warmest thanks to all those brethren who voted in the 
minority in Bishop Andrew’s case. 

‘7, That we approve of the proposed convention to be held in Louisville the first 
of May next, and will proceed to elect delegates to said convention. 

“8. That we do not concur in the resolution of the Holston Conference, proposing 
the election of delegates for forming a plan of compromise. 

“9. That we do concur in the recommendation of the late General Conference for 
the change of the sixth article in the restrictive rules in the Book of Discipline, al- 
lowing an equitable pro rata division of the Book Concem. 

“P,P. Smith, T. C. Benning, R. H. Lucky, J. W. Yarbrough, R. H. Howren, 
W. W. Griffin, A. Peeler, A. Martin, S. P. Richardson.” 


The Texas Conference adopted the following report and resolutions :-— 


«The committee to whom were referred certain acts of the late General Con- 
ference, causing and providing for a division of the Methodist Episcopal Church, or 
the General Conference thereof, and sundry communications pertaining thereto, have 
had the same under solemn and prayerful consideration, and beg leave to present 
the following report :— 

“Tn view of the numerous expositions and arguments, pro and con, with which 
the Christian Advocates have teemed for some months, on the merits of the highly- 
important subject upon which your committee have been called to act, they presume 
that the conference is too well enlightened to need an elaborate and argumentative 
investigation of them, in their multifarious relations and bearings ; they, therefore, 
respectfully present the following resolutions, as the result of their deliberations :— 

“« Resolved, 1. That we approve of the course of the Southern and South-Western 
delegates in the late General Conference ; and that their independent and faithful 
discharge of duty, in a trying crisis, commands our admiration and merits our thanks. 

“2. That we deeply deplore the increasingly-fearful controversy between the 
Northern and Southern divisions of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the institu- 
tion of domestie slavery, and that we will not cease to pray most fervently to the 
great Head of the Church for his gracious interposition in guiding this controversy 
to a happy issue. 

‘3. That we approve the appointment of a convention of delegates from the con- 
ferences in the slaveholding States, in the city of Louisville, on the first of May next, 


119 


by the Southern and South-Western delegates in the late General Conference ; and 
also, the ratio of representation proposed by said delegates—to wit, one delegate for 
every eleven members of the Conference ; and that we will elect delegates to the 
proposed convention upon said basis, to act under the following instructions, to wit : 
To endeavour to secure a compromise between the North and South ; to oppose a 
formal division of the Church before the General Conference of 1848, or a general 
convention can be convened to decide the present controversy. But should a divi- 
sion be deemed unavoidable, and be determined on by the convention, then, being 
well satisfied with the Discipline of the Church, as it is, we instruct our delegates 
not to support or favour any change in said Discipline, by said convention, other than 
to adapt its fiscal economy to the Southern organization. 

“4. That we approve of the dignified and prudent course of the bench of bishops, 
who presided in the late General Conference. 

“5. That it is the sense of this conference, that the Rev. John Clarke, one of our 
delegates to the late General Conference, entirely misrepresented our views and 
sentiments, in his votes in the cases of Rev. IF’. A. Harding and Bishop Andrew. 

“6. That we appoint the Friday immediately preceding the meeting of the pro- 
posed general convention of the delegates of the Southern and South- Western con- 
ferences, as a day of fasting and prayer for the blessing of Almighty God on said 
convention, that it may be favoured with the healthful influence of his grace, and 
the guidance of his wisdom. 

“ Chauncey Richardson, Robert Alexander, Samuel A. Williams :” 


The Alabama Conference adopted the following preamble and resolutions .— 


“The committee appointed by the conference to take into consideration the sub- 
ject of a separate jurisdiction for the Southern conferences of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, beg leave to report: That they have meditated with prayerful solici- 
tude on this important matter, and have solemnly concluded on the necessity of the 
measure. ‘They suppose it to be superfluous to review formally all the proceedings 
which constitute the unhappy controversy between the Northern and Southern por- 
tions of our Church, inasmuch as their sentiments can be expressed in one sentence, 
—They endorse the unanswerable Protest of the minority in the late General Con- 
ference. ‘They believe that the doctrines of that imperishable document cannot be 
successfully assailed. They are firm in the conviction that the action of the ma- 
jority in the case of Bishop Andrew was unconstitutional. Being but a delegated 
body, the General Conference has no legitimate right to tamper with the office of a 
general superimtendent—his amenableness to that body and liability to expulsion by 
it, haying exclusive reference to mal-administration, ceasing to travel, and immoral 
conduct. ‘They are of opinion that Bishop Andrew’s connexion with slavery can come 
under none of these heads. If the entire eldership of the Church, in a conven- 
tional capacity, were to constitute non-slaveholding or even abolitionism a tenure by 
which the episcopal office should be held, or if they were to abolish the office, they 
doubtless could plead the abstract right thus to modify or revolutionize the Church 
in its supreme executive administration ; but before the General Conference can 
justly plead this right, it must show when and where such plenary power was dele- 
gated to it by the only fountain of authority—the entire pastorate of the Church. 
Your committee are, therefore, of opinion, that the General Conference has no more 
power over a bishop, except in the specified cases of mal-administration, ceasing to 
travel, and immorality, than over the episcopacy, as an integral part of our ecclesi- 
astical polity. It can no more depose a bishop for slaveholding than it can create a 
new Church. 

“Your committee deeply regret that these ‘conservative’ sentiments did not 
occur to the majority in the late General Conference, and that the apologists of 
that body, since its session, have given them no place in their ecclesiastical creed, 
but on the contrary have given fearful evidence that the proceedings in the case of 
Bishop Andrew are but the incipiency of a course, which, when finished, will leave 
not a solitary slaveholder in the communion which shall be unfortunately under their 
control. ‘The foregoing sentiments and opinions embody the general views ex- 
pressed most unequivocally throughout the conference district since the late General 
Conference, by the large body of the membership, both in primary meetings and 
quarterly conferences, 


120 


“The committee, therefore, offer to the calm consideration and mature action of 
the Alabama Annual Conference, the following series of resolutions :— 

“1. Resolved, That this conference deeply deplores the action of the late General 
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the case of our venerable super- 
intendent, Bishop Andrew, believing it to be unconstitutional, being as totally desti- 
tute of warrant from the Discipline as from the word of God. 

“2. That the almost-unanimous agreement of Northern Methodists with the 
majority, and Southern Methodists with the minority of the late General Con- 
ference, shows the wisdom of that body in suggesting a duality of jurisdiction to 
meet the present emergency. 

“«3. That this conference agrees to the proposition for the alteration of the sixth 
restrictive rule of the Discipline. 

“4, That this conference approves of the projected convention at Louisville, in 
May next. 

“5. That this conference most respectfully invites all the bishops to attend the 
proposed convention at Louisville. 

“6, That this conference is decided in its attachment to Methodism, as it exists 
in the Book of Discipline, and hopes that the Louisville convention will not make 
the slightest alteration, except so far as may be absolutely necessary for the forma~ 
tion of a separate jurisdiction. 

‘7. That every preacher of this conference shall take up a collection in his 
station or circuit, as soon as practicable, to defray the expenses of the delegates to 
the convention ; and the proceeds of such collection shall be immediately paid over 
to the nearest delegate or presiding elder, and the excess or deficit of the collection 
for the said expenses shall be reported to the next conference, which shall take action 
on the same. 

“8. That the Friday immediately preceding the session of the convention, shall 
be observed in all our circuits and stations, as a day of fasting and prayer for the 
blessings of God upon its deliberations. 

“9. That whilst this conference fully appreciates the commendable motives which 
induced the Holston Conference to suggest another expedient to compromise the 
differences existing between the Northern and Southern divisions of the Church, it 
nevertheless cannot concur in the proposition of that conference concerning that 
matter. 

“10. That this conference fully recognises the right of our excellent superinten- 
dent, Bishop Soule, to invite Bishop Andrew to share with him the responsibilities 
of the episcopal office ; and while the conference regrets the absence of the former, 
it rejoices in being favoured with the efficient services of the latter—it respectfully 
tenders these ‘true yoke-fellows’ in the superintendency the fullest approbation, the 
most fervent prayers, and the most cordial sympathies. 

“ Thos. O. Summers, A. H. Mitchell, E. V. Levert, J. Hamilton, E. Hearn, W. 
Murrah, J. Boring, Geo. Shaeffer, C. McLeod.” 


Bishop Soule’s letter of adhesion, and Bishop Andrew’s letter, both of which were 
addressed to the convention at Louisville, are as follows :— 


“Dear Breruren,—lI feel myself bound in good faith, to carry out the official 
plan of episcopal visitations as settled by the bishops in New-York, and published in 
the official papers of the Church, until the session of the first General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South ; from which time it would be necessary 
that the plan should be so changed as to be accommodated to the jurisdiction of the 
two distinct General Conferences. That when such Southern General Conference 
shall be held, I shall feel myself fully authorized by the Plan of Separation, adopted 
by the General Conference of 1844, to unite myself with the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, and if received by the General Conference of said Church, to exercise 
the functions of the episcopal office within the jurisdiction of said General Conference. 

* Louisville, Ky., May 19, 1845. Josnua Sou.e.” 


“ Dear Breruren,—lI decidedly approve the course which the convention has 
taken in establishing the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, believing, as I do most 
sincerely, that it will tend, under God’s blessing, to the wider spread and more effi- 
cient propagation of the Gospel of the grace of God. I accept the invitation of the 


121 


convention to act as one of the superintendents of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, and pledge myself, in humble dependence upon Divine grace, to use my best 
efforts to promote the cause of God in the interesting and extensive field of labour 
assigned me. 

“May the blessing of God be upon us mutually, in our laborious field of action, 
and, finally, may we all, with our several charges, be gathered to the home of God 
and the good in heaven! Affectionately your brother and fellow-labourer, 

“« Louisville, May, 1845. James O. ANDREW.” 


The Pastoral Address referred to by Mr. Lord was in these words :— 


“To the ministers of the several annual conferences of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, and to all the brethren of their pastoral oversight, the convention of 
said annual conferences address this letter, with Christian salutation. 

“We gratefully regard it matter of congratulation, beloved brethren, for which 
our thanks should be offered at the throne of grace, that we have been enabled to 
conduct the business confided to us by you, with great harmony, and except, perhaps, 
some inconsiderable shades of difference on points of minor import, with unexampled 
unanimity. Our agreement on all questions of importance, has probably been as per- 
fect as the weakness of human knowledge might allow, or reason should require. 

“For full information of all that we have done, we refer you to the journal of our 
proceedings, and the documents which accompany it ; particularly the reports of the 
committee on organization and on missions. ‘This latter interest we have made 
the subject of a special letter, wishing to bring it immediately to the notice of all our 
Churches and congregations, (to whom we have requested the letter might be read,) 
to engage their instant liberality. 

«We made it a point of early inquiry, in the course of our proceedings, to ascer- 
tain with what unanimity the annual conferences represented by us, and the entire 
body of the ministry and membership within their general bounds, were known to 
have concurred in sustaining the Declaration of the Southern delegates in the late 
General Conference, and in approving of the Plan provided by that Conference for 
our being constituted a distinct ecclesiastical connexion, separate from the North. 
The committee on organization, being composed of two members from each of the 
annual conferences, was furnished with ample means of obtaining satisfactory infor- 
mation. The members of the committee held meetings with their several delega- 
tions apart, and on a comparison of their several reports carefully made, it was found, 
that both as to the members of the annual conferences, and the local ministry and 
membership of our entire territory, the declaration had been sustained, and a separate 
organization called for, by as great majority as ninety-five to five. Nor did it appear 
that even five in a hundred were disposed to array themselves against their brethren, 
whose interests were identical with their own ; but that part were Northern brethren 
sojourning in our borders, and part were dwelling in sections of the country where 
the questions involved did not materially concern their Christian privileges, or those 
of the slaves among them. So great appears to have been the unanimity of opinion 
prevailing, both among the pastors and the people, as to the urgent necessity of the 
great measure which we were deputed to effect, by organizing on the basis of the 
Discipline, and the Plan provided by the late General Conference, THe Metuopist 
Eptscopat Cuurcu, Souru. 

“ That on so grave a question, concerning interests so sacred, and affecting so nu- 
merous a people, spread over the vast extent of the country from Missouri to the 
Atlantic Ocean, and from Virginia to Texas, there should be found some who dissent, 
is what we could not but expect. But that the number dissenting should have been 
so small, compared to the number of those who have required us to act, is, at least 
to our minds, conclusive proof of the absolute necessity of this action, as affording 
the only means left in our power to preserve the Church in the more Southern 
States from hopeless ruin. Indeed the action of the late General Conference, with- 
out the intervention of the Declaration of the Southern delegates, and the provisional 
Plan for a separate Southern connexion, must have immediately broken up all our 
missions to the people of colour, and subjected their classes in most of the Southern 
circuits to ruinous deprivations. Of this, the evidence has been unquestionable. 
And it must appear to you, brethren, that for whatever reason so great an evil was 
threatened for a cause which the Southern delegates did nothing to produce, but re- 


122 


sisted in the General Conference, that evil could not fail of being inflicted with 
redoubled violence, and to a still greater extent, if we, having a platform legally 
furnished for a separate organization, should hesitate a moment to avail ourselves of it. 
It would be, in effect, to put ourselves, in relation to the laws and policy of the 
Southern people, in the same position which was so injuriously offensive in our 
Northern brethren, while it could not be plead in extenuation of the fault, that we 
were Northern men, and ignorant of the state of affairs at the South. Into such a po- 
sition we could not possibly put ourselves; nor can we think that reasonable men 
would require us to do so. 

“We avow, brethren, and we do it with the greatest solemnity, that while we 
have thus been laid under the imperative force of an absolute necessity to organize 
the Southern and South-Western conferences into an independent ecclesiastical con- 
nexion, whose jurisdiction shall be exclusive of all interference on the part of the 
North, we do not withdraw from the true Christian and catholic pale of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. And that whilst we have complained, with grievous cause, of 
the power of the majority of the General Conference, as that power has been con- 
strued and exercised, we have not complained, and have no complaint, against the 
Church in itself. The General Conference, or a majority thereof, is not the Church. 
Nor is it possible that that should be the Methodist Episcopal Church, which with- 
draws the ministry of the Gospel from the poor, and turns her aside from her calling 
of God, ‘to spread Scripture holiness over these lands,’ in order to fulfil some other 
errand, no matter what. We could not be Methodists at all, as we have been taught 
what Methodism is, if, with our knowledge of its nature, its aim, its constitution, its 
discipline, and of the ruin inevitable to the work of the ministry in most of the South- 
ern States, if not in all of them, we should still cleave to a Northern jurisdiction ; 
we nevertheless could not be persuaded to yield the Gospel for a jurisdictional affinity 
with brethren, who, we believe in our hearts, cannot govern us without great injury 
to the cause of Christ in most parts of our work. If we err, it is the spirit of Metho- 
dism which prompts us to the error. We ‘call God for a record,’ that, as far as we 
know our hearts, we intend nothing, we desire nothing, we do nothing, having any other 
object or aim, but that the Gospel may be preached, without let or hindrance, in all 
parts of our country, and especially to the poor. There is nothing belonging of right 
to the Church—her doctrines, her discipline,her economy, her usages, her efticiency-— 
which we do not cherish in our inmost hearts. It is not the Church, not anything 
proper to the Church, in her character as Christ’s body, and consecrated to the pro- 
motion of his cause in the earth, which we would disown, or depart from, or oppose ; 
but only such a position in the Church as some of her sons would force us into, an- 
tagonistic to her principles, her policy, and her calling of God. Nor yet can we be 
charged with any factious or schismatic opposition to the General Conference, for we 
have done nothing, and mean to do nothing, not authorized by express enactment of 
that body, in view of the very emergency which compels our action. 

“It had been too much to expect, considering the weakness of men, that, suddenly 
roused to resistance, as the Southern Churches were, by the wnlooked-for action in 
the cases of Bishop Andrew and brother Harding, there should not, in some instances, 
have escaped expressions of resentment and unkindness. Or that, put to the defence 
of the majority of the General Conference, where the evil complained of was so seri- 
ous, the advocates of that majority should not sometimes have expressed themselves 
in terms which seemed harsh and unjust. We deeply deplore it, and pray that, for the 
time to come, such exhibitions of a mortifying frailty may give place to Christian mode- 
ration. We invoke the spirit of peace and holiness. That brother shall be esteemed 
as deserving best, who shall do most for the promotion of peace. Surely this is a 
time of all others, in our day, when we should seek and pursue peace. A continu- 
ance of strife between North and South must prove prejudicial on both sides. The 
separation is made—formally, legally made—and let peace ensue. In Christ’s name 
let there be peace. Whatever is needful to be done, or worth the doing, may be done 
m peace. We especially exhort brethren of the border conferences and societies, to 
forbear each other in love, and labour after peace. Let every one abide by the law 
of the General Conference, with respect to our bounds, and choose for himself with 
Christian temper, and permit others to choose without molestation, between North 
and South. Our chief care should be to maintain ‘ the unity of the Spirit in the bond 
of peace.’ Methodism, preserved in what makes it one the world over—the purity 
of its doctrines, the efficiency of its discipline, its unworldliness, its zeal for God, its 


123 


self-devotion—is of infinitely greater value tham a question of boundary or General 
Conference jurisdiction merely. 

« And now, brethren, beseeching you to receive the word of exhortation which we 
have herein briefly addressed to you, and humbly invoking the blessings of God upon 
you, according to the riches of his grace in Christ our Lord, praymg for you, as we 
always do, that you may abound in every good work, and confidmg in your prayers 
for us, that we may be found one with you im faith and charity at the appearing of 
Jesus Christ, we take leave of you, and return from the work which we have now 
fulfilled, to renew our labours with you and among you in the Lord. 

“ James O. ANDREW, President. 
“Tomas O. Summers, Secretary. 


“ LovisvILLE, Kentucky, May 16, 1845.” 


The report of the Committee on Organization, on page 67, which Mr. Lord com- 
mended to the attention of the Court as an able document, containing nearly all the 
argument on that side, is in these words :— 


“The committee appointed to inquire into the propriety and necessity of a sepa- 
rate organization of the annual conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
slaveholding States, for the purpose of a separate General Conference connexion 
and jurisdiction, within the limits of said States and conferences, having had the en- 
tire subject under careful and patient consideration, together with the numerous peti- 
tions, instructions, resolutions, and propositions for adjustment and compromise, 
referred to them by the convention, offer the following as their 


“ REPORT. 


‘Tn view of the extent to which the great questions in controversy, between the 
North and the South of the Methodist Episcopal Church, have been discussed, and 
by consequence must be understood by the parties more immediately interested, it 
has not been deemed necessary by the committee to enter into any formal or elabo- 
rate examination of the general subject, beyond a plain and comprehensive statement 
of the facts and principles involved, which may place it in the power of all concerned, 
to do justice to the convictions and motives of the Southern portion of the Church, 
in resisting the action of the late General Conference on the subject of slavery, and 
its unconstitutional assumption of right and power in other respects; and also pre- 
senting, in a form as brief and lucid as possible, some of the principal grounds of ac- 
tion, had in view by the South, in favouring the provisional Plan of Separation, adopted 
by the General Conference at its last session. 

‘*‘On the subject of the legitimate right, and the full and proper authority of the 
convention to institute, determine, and finally act upon the inquiry, referred to the 
committee to deliberate and report upon, the committee entertain no doubt whatever. 
Apart from every other consideration which might be brought to bear upon the ques- 
tion, the General Conference of 1844, in the Plan of jurisdictional Separation adopted 
by that body, gave full and express authority to ‘the annual conferences in the slave- 
holding States,’ to judge of the propriety, and decide upon the necessity, of organiz- 
ing a ‘ separate ecclesiastical connexion’ in the South. And not only did the Gene- 
ral Conference invest this right in ‘the annual conferences in the slaveholding States,’ 
without limitation or reserve, as to the extent of the investment, and exclusively with 
regard to every other division of the Church, and all other branches or powers of 
the government, but left the method of official determination and the mode of action, 
in the exercise or assertion of the right, to the free and untrammelled discretion of 
the conferences interested. These conferences, thus accredited by the General 
Conference to judge and act for themselves, confided the right and trust of decision 
and action, in the premises, to delegates regularly chosen by these bodies respective- 
ly, upon a uniform principle and fixed ratio of representation, previously agreed upon 
by each, in constitutional session, and directed them to meet in general convention, 
in the city of Louisville, May, 1845, for this and other purposes, authorized by the 
General Conference, at the same time and inthe same way. All the right and power, 
therefore, of the General Conference, in any way connected with the important deci- 
sion in question, were duly and formally transferred to ‘the annual conferences in 
the slaveholding States,’ and exclusively invested in them. And as this investment 


124 


was obviously for the purpose, that such right and power might be exercised by them, 
in any mode they might prefer, not inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the 
investment, the delegates thus chosen, one hundred in number, and representing six- 
teen annual conferences, under commission of the General Conference, here and now 
assembled in convention, have not only all the right and power of the General Con- 
ference, as transferred to ‘ the annual conferences in the slaveholding States,’ but in 
addition, all the right and power of necessity mherent in these bodies, as constituent 
parties, giving birth and power to the General Conference itself, as the common 
federal council of the Church. It follows hence, that for all the purposes specified 
and understood in this preliminary view of the subject, the convention possesses all 
the right and power, both of the General Conference and the sixteen ‘ annual confer- 
ences in the slaveholding States,’ jointly and severally considered. The ecclesi- 
astical and conventional right, therefore, of this body, to act in the premises, and act 
conclusively, irrespective of the whole Church, and all its powers of government be- 
side, is clear and undoubted. As the moral right, however, to act as proposed in the 
General Conference Plan of jurisdictional Separation, rests upon entirely different 
grounds, and will perhaps be considered as furnishing the only allowable warrant of 
action, notwithstanding constitutional right, it may be necessary at least to glance at 
the grave moral reasons, creating the necessity, the high moral compulsions, by 
which the Southern conferences and Church have been impelled to the course of ac- 
tion, which it is the intention of this report to explain and vindicate, as not only right 
and reasonable, but indispensable to the character and welfare of Southern Methodism. 

“The preceding statements and reasoning, present no new principle or form of 
action in the history of the Church. Numerous instances might be cited, in the 
constitutional history of Church polity, in which high moral necessity, in the absence 
of any recognised conventional right, has furnished the only and yet sufficient war- 
rant for ecclesiastical movements and arrangements, precisely similar in character 
with that contemplated in the plan of a separate Southern Connexion of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, adopted by the late General Conference. Wesleyan Me- 
thodism, in all its phases and aspects, is a most pertinent illustration of the truth we 
assume, and the fitness and force of the example must go far to preclude the neces- 
sity of any other proof. It was on the specific basis of such necessity, without 
conventional right, that the great Wesleyan Conference arose in England. It was 
upon the same basis, as avowed by Wesley, that the American Connexion became 
separate and independent, and this Connexion again avows the same principle of 
action, in the separation and establishment of a Methodist Episcopal Church in 
Canada, whose organization took place by permission and direction of the same 
authority, under which this convention is now acting for a similar purpose. 

‘Should it appear in the premises of the action proposed, that a high moral and 
religious duty is devolved upon the ministry and membership of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, in the South,—devolved upon us by the Great Head of the Church, 
and the providential appointments of our social condition, which we cannot neglect 
without infidelity to a high moral trust, but which we cannot fulfil in connexional 
union with the Northern portion of the Church, under the same General Conference 
jurisdiction, owing to causes connected with the civil institutions of the country, and 
beyond the control of the Church,—then a strong moral necessity is laid upon us, 
which assumes the commanding character of a positive duty, under sanction of Di- 
vine right, to dissolve the ties and bonds of a single General Conference jurisdiction, 
and in its place substitute one in the South, which will not obstruct us in the per- 
formance of duty, or prevent us from accomplishing the great objects of the Christian 
ministry and Church organization. From a careful survey of the entire field of facts 
and their relations—the whole range of cause and effect, as connected with the 
subject-matter of this report—it is confidently believed that the great warrant of 
moral necessity, not less than unquestionable ecclesiastical right, fully justified this 
convention in the position they are about to take, as a separate organic division of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, by authority of its chief synod,— the delegates of all 
the several annual conferences in General Conference assembled.’ One of the two 
main issues, which have decided the action of the Southern conferences, relates, as 
all know, to the assumed right of the Church to control the question of slavery, by 
means of the ordinary and fluctuating provisions of Church legislation, without refer- 
ence to the superior control of State policy and civil law. From all the evidence 
accessible in the case, the great masses of the ministry and membership of the Me- 


125 


thodist Episcopal Church, North and South, present an irreconcilable opposition of 
conviction and feeling on the subject of slavery, so far as relates to the rights of the 
Church to interfere with the question—the one claimimg unlimited right of inter- 
ference to the full extent the Church may, at any time or from any cause, be con- 
cemed; and the other resisting alike the assumption or exercise of any such right, 
because, in nearly all the slaveholding States, such a course of action must bring 
the Church in direct conflict with the civil authority, to which the Church has 
pledged subjection and support in the most solemn and explicit forms, and from the 
obligations of which she cannot retreat without dishonouring her own laws, and the 
neglect and violation of some of the plain and most imperative requirements of 
Christianity. Under such circumstances of disagreement—in such a state of adverse 
conviction and feeling on the part of the North and South of the Church—it is be- 
lieved that the two great sections of the Church, thus situated, in relation to each 
other, by causes beyond the control of either party, cannot remain together and suc- 
cessfully prosecute the high and common aims of the Christian ministry and Church 
organization, under the same General Conference jurisdiction. The manifest want 
of uniformity of opinion and harmony of co-operation, must always lead, as hereto- 
fore, to struggles and results directly inconsistent with the original intention of the 
Church, in establishing a common jurisdiction, to control all its general interests. 
And should it appear that, by a division and future duality of such jurisdiction, as 
authorized by the late General Conference, the original purposes of the Church can 
better be accomplished, or rather, that they can be accomplished in no other way, 
how can the true and proper unity of the Church be maintained except by yielding 
to the necessity, and having a separate General Conference jurisdiction for each 
division? By the Southern portion of the Church generally, slavery is regarded as 
strictly a civil stitution, exclusively in custody of the civil power, and as a regula- 
tion of State beyond the reach of Church interference or control, except as civil law 
and right may be infringed by ecclesiastical assumption. By the Northern portion 
of the Church, individuals are held responsible for the alleged injustice and evil of re- 
lations and rights, created and protected by the organic and municipal laws of the gov- 
ernment and country, and which relations and rights, in more than two-thirds of the 
slaveholding States, are not under individual control in any sense or to any extent. 

** Both portions of the Church are presumed to act from principle and conviction, 
and cannot, therefore, recede ; and how, under such circumstances, is it possible to 
prevent the most fearful disunion, with all the attendant evils of contention and strife, 
except by allowing each section a separate and independent jurisdiction, the same in 
character and purpose with the one to which both have hitherto been subject? What 
fact, truth, or principle, not merely of human origin, and therefore of doubtful au- 
thority, can be urged, as interposing any reasonable obstacle to a change of juris- 
diction, merely modal in character, and simply designed to adapt a single principle 
of Church government, not pretended to be of Divine obligation or Scripture origin, 
to the character and features of the civil government of the country? Nothing 
essential to Church organization ; nothing essentially distinctive of Methodism,—even 
American Methodism,—is proposed to be disturbed, or even touched, by the ar- 
rangement. It is a simple division of general jurisdiction, for strong moral reasons, 
arising out of the civil relations and position of the parties, intending to acecom- 
plish for both, what it is demonstrated by experiment cannot be accomplished by one 
common jurisdiction, as now constituted, and should, therefore, under the stress of 
such moral necessity, be attempted in some other way. 

“The question of slavery, more or less intimately interwoven with the interests 
and destiny of nine millions of human beings, in the United States, is certainly of 
sufficient importance, coming up as it has in the recent history of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, and as it does in the deliberations of this convention, to authorize 
any merely modal or even organic changes in the government of the Church, should 
it appear obvious that the original and avowed purposes of the Church will be more 
effectively secured and promoted by the change proposed, than by continuing the 
present or former system. ‘The evidence before the committee, establishes the fact 
in the clearest manner possible, that, throughout the Southern conferences, the 
ministry and membership of the Church, amounting to nearly 500,000, in the pro- 
portion of about ninety-five in the hundred, deem a division of jurisdiction indis- 
pensable to the welfare of the Church, in the Southern and South-Western confer- 
ences of the slaveholding States ; and this fact alone, must go far to establish the 


126 


right, while it demonstrates the necessity, of the separate jurisdiction, contemplated 
in the Plan of General Conference, and adopted by that body in view of such neces- 
sity, as likely to exist. The interests of State, civil law, and public opinion, in the 
South, imperiously require, that the Southern portion of the Church shall have no 
part in the discussion and agitation of this subject in the chief councils of the Church. 
{n this opinion, nearly universal in the South, we concur. 

“Christ and his apostles—Christianity and its inspired and early teachers—found 
slavery in its most offensive and aggravated forms, as a civil institution, diffused and 
existing throughout nearly the entire field of their administrations and influence ; 
and yet, in the New Testament and earlier records of the Church, we have no legis- 
lation—no interference—no denunciation with regard to it, not even remonstrance 
against it. ‘They found it wrought up and vitally intermingled with the whole 
machinery of civil government and order of society—so implicated with ‘ the powers 
that be,’ that Infinite Wisdom, and the early pastoral guides of the Church, saw just 
reason why the Church should not interfere beyond a plain and urgent enforcement 
of the various duties growing out of the peculiar relation of master and slave, leaving 
the relation itself, as a civil arrangement, untouched and unaffected, except so far as 
it seems obviously to have been the Divine purpose to remove every form and degree 
of wrong and evil connected with the institutions of human government, by a faithful 
inculcation of the doctrines and duties of Christianity, without meddling in any way 
with the civil polity of the countries into which it was introduced. A course pre- 
cisely similar to this, the example of which should have been more attractive, was 
pursued by the great founder of Methodism, in all slaveholding countries in which 
he established societies. Mr. Wesley never deemed it proper to have any rule, law, 
or regulation on the subject of slavery, either in the United States, the West Indies, 
or elsewhere. The effects of the early and unfortunate attempts of the Methodist 
Church to meddle and interfere, in the legislation and practice of government and 
discipline, with the institution of slavery in the United States, are too well known to 
require comment. Among the more immediate results of this short-sighted, disas- 
trous imprudence, especially from 1780 to 1804, may be mentioned the watchful 
jealousy of civil government, and the loss of public confidence throughout a very 
large and influential portion of the whole Southern community. These, and similar 
developments, led the Church, by the most careful and considerate steps, to the 
adoption, gradually, of a medium compromise course of legislation on the subject ; 
until the law of slavery, as it now exists in the Jetter of Discipline, became, by the 
Jast material act of legislation in 1816, the great compromise bond of union be- 
tween the North and the South on the subject of slavery. The whole law of the 
Church—all there is in the statute-book, to govern North and South on this subject— 
is the following :—First: The general rule, which simply prohibits ‘ the buying or 
selling of men, women, or children, with an intention to enslave them.’ Second : 
‘No slaveholder shall be eligible to any official station in our Church hereafter, 
where the laws of the State in which he lives admit of emancipation, and permit the 
liberated slave to enjoy freedom. When any travelling preacher becomes an owner 
of a slave or slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character in our 
Church, unless he execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of such slaves, 
conformably to the laws of the State in which he lives.’ 

“Here is the law, the whole, the only law of the Church, containing, first, a prohibi- 
hon, and, second, a grant. The prohibition is, that no member or minister of the 
Church, is allowed to purchase or sell a human being, who is to be enslaved, or re- 
duced to a state of slavery, by such purchase or sale. And further, that no minister, 
in any of the grades of ministerial office, or other person, having official standing in 
the Church, can, if he be the owner of a slave, be allowed to sustain such official 
relation to the Church, unless he shall legally provide for the emancipation of such 
slave or slaves, if the laws of the State in which he lives will admit of legal eman- 
cipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom. Such is the plain prohabi- 
tion of law, binding upon all. The grant of the law, however, is equally plain and 
unquestionable. It is, that persons may purchase or sell men, women, or children, 
provided such purchase or sale does not involve the fact or intention of enslaving 
them, or of reducing the subjects of such purchase or sale to a state of slavery. The 
intention of the law no doubt is, that this may be done from motives of humanity, 
and not by any means for the purpose of gain. But further, the law distinctly pro- 
vides, that every minister, in whatever grade of office, and every person having 


127 


official standing of any kind in the Methodist Episcopal Church, being the owner or 
owners of slave property, shall be protected against any forfeiture of right, on this 
account, where the laws of the State do not admit of legal emancipation, and allow 
the liberated slave to enjoy freedom in the State in which he is emancipated. Here 
is the plain grant of law to which we allude. From the first agitation of the subject 
of slavery in the Church, the Northern portion of it has been disposed to insist upon 
further prohibitory enactments. The South, meanwhile, has always shown itself 
ready to go as far, by way of prohibition, as the law in question implies, but has 
uniformly resisted any attempt to impair Southern rights under protection of the 
grant of law to which we have asked attention. Under such circumstances of dis- 
agreement and difficulty, the conventional and legislative adjustment of the question, 
as found in the General Rule, but especially the tenth section of the Discipline, was 
brought about, and has always been regarded in the South as a great compromise 
arrangement, without strict adherence to which, the North and the South could not 
remain together under the same general jurisdiction. That we have not mistaken 
the character of the law, or misconstrued the intention and purposes of its enact- 
ment, at different times, we think entirely demonstrable from the whole history both 
of the legistation of the Church and the judicial and executive administration of the 
government. The full force and bearing of the law, however, were more distinctly 
brought in view, and authoritatively asserted, by the General Conference of 1840, 
after the most careful examination of the whole subject, and the judicial determina- 
tion of that body, connected with the language of the Discipline, just quoted, gives 
in still clearer light the true and only law of the Church on the subject of slavery. 
After deciding various other principles and positions incidental to the main question, 
the decision is summed up in the following words :—‘ While the general rule (or 
law) on the subject of slavery, relating to those States whose laws admit of emanci- 
pation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, should be firmly and con- 
stantly enforced, the exception to the general rule (or law) applying to those States 
where emancipation, as defined above, is not practicable, should be recognised and 
protected with equal firmness and impartiality ; therefore— 

““< Resolved by the several annual conferences in General Conference assembled, 
That under the provisional exception of the general rule (or law) of the Church, on 
the subject of slavery, the simple holding of slaves, or mere ownership of slave pro- 
perty, in States or Territories where the laws do not admit of emancipation and 
permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal barrier to the elec- 
tion or ordination of ministers to the various grades of office known in the ministry 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and cannot, therefore, be considered as operating 
any forfeiture of right, in view of such election and ordination.’ This decision of the 
General Conference was not objected to or dissented from by a single member of that 
body. It was the unanimous voice of the great representative and judicial council 
of the Church, then acting in the character of a high court of appeals for the decision 
of an important legal question. It will be perceived how strikingly the language of 
this decision accords with both the features of the law of slavery which we have 
thought important to notice—the prohibition and the grant of law in the case; what 
may not be done as the general rule, and at the same time what may be done, under 
the provisional exception to the general law, without forfeiture of mght of any kind. 
It is also worthy of particular notice, that besides the plain assurance of the original 
law, that where emancipation is not legally practicable, and the emancipated slave al- 
lowed to enjoy freedom, or where it is practicable to emancipate, but the emancipated 
slave cannot enjoy freedom, emancipation is not required of any owner of slaves in 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, from the lowest officer up to the bishop, but the 
rights of all thus cireumstanced are protected and secured, notwithstanding their 
connexion with slavery. Besides this, the full and elaborate decision of the General 
Conference, as a grave and formal adjudication had upon all the issues involved in the 
question, published to all who where in, or might be disposed to enter the Church, 
that the law of slavery applied to States where emancipation is impracticable, and 
the freed slave not allowed to enjoy freedom, this clear and unambiguous decision, 
by the highest authority of the Church, leaves the owner of slaves upon the ground— 
upon a basis—of the most perfect equality with other ministers of the Church having 
no connexion with slavery. Such, then, is the law; such its construction ; such the 
official and solemn pledge of the Church. And these had, to a great extent, restored 
the lost confidence and allayed the jealous apprehensions of the South, in relation 


128 


to the purposes of the Church respecting slavery. There was in the South no dis- 
position to disturb, discuss, or in any way agitate the subject. The law was not 
objected to or complained of, but was regarded as a settled compromise between 
the parties, a medium arrangement on the ground of mutual concession, well calcu- 
lated to secure and promote the best interests of the Church, North and South. 

“ That this law—this great compromise conservative arrangement, which had been 
looked to as the only reliable bond of jurisdictional union between the North and 
South for nearly half a century—was practically disregarded and abandoned by the 
last General Conference, in the memorable cases of Harding and Andrew, both by 
judicial construction and virtual legislation, manifestly inconsistent with its provisions 
and purposes, and subyersive of the great objects of Its enactment, has been too fear- 
fully demonstrated by various forms of proof, to require more than a brief notice in 
this report. The actual position of the Church was suddenly reversed, and its long- 
established policy entirely changed. The whole law of the Church and the most 
important adjudications had upon it, were treated as null and obsolete, and that body 
proceeded to a claim of right, and course of action, amounting to a virtual repeal of 
all law, and new and capricious legislation on the most difficult and delicate question 
ever introduced into the councils of the Church, or named upon its statute-book. 

‘« By no fair construction of the law of slavery as given above, could the Church 
be brought in conflict with civil legislation on the subject. It is true, as demanded 
by the convictions and opinions of the Church, testimony was borne against the evil 
of slavery, but it was done without conflicting with the polity and laws of any por- 
tion of the country. No law, for example, affected the lay-membership of the 
Church with regard to slaveholding ; the Church gave its full permission that the 
private members of the Church might own and hold slaves at discretion ; and the 
inference is indubitable, that the Church did not consider simple slaveholding as a 
moral evil, personally attaching to the mere fact of being the owner or holder of 
slaves. The evil charged upon slavery must of necessity have been understood of 
other aspects of the subject, and could not imply moral obliquity, without impeach- 
ing the integrity and virtue of the Church. Moreover, where the laws precluded 
emancipation, the ministry were subjected to no disabilities of any kind, and the re- 
quirements of the Church, in relation to slavery, were not at least in anything like 
direct conflict with civil law. In contravention, however, of the plain and long- 
established law of the Church, the action of the General Conference of 1844, in the 
well-known instances cited, brought the Church into a state of direct and violent an- 
tagonism with the civil authority and the rights of citizenship, throughout all the 
slaveholding States. This was not done by the repeal of existing law, or additional 
legislation by direct enactment, but in a much more dangerous form, by the simple 
process of resolution by an irresponsible majority, requirmg Southern ministers as 
slavyeholders, in order to Church eligibility and equality of right with non-slavehold- 
ing ministers of the Church, to do what cannot be done without a violation of the 
laws of the States in which they reside, and is not required or contemplated, but 
expressly excepted, and even provided against, by the law of the Church. 

“Tt will thus appear that the entire action of the General Conference on the sub- 
ject of slavery, was in direct conflict with the law, both of the Church and the land, 
and could not have been submitted to by the South, without the most serious detri- 
ment to the interests of the Church. The action in the instance of Bishop Andrew, 
was, in the strongest and most exceptionable sense, extra-judicial. It was not pre- 
tended that Bishop Andrew had violated any law of the Church; so far from this, 
the only law applicable to the case, gave, as we have seen, ample and explicit assur- 
ance of protection. So to construe law, or so proceed to act without reference to 
law, as to abstract from it its whole protective power, and deprive it of all its conser- 
vative tendencies in the system, is one of the most dangerous forms of legal injustice, 
and, as a principle of action, must be considered as subversive of all order and gov- 
ernment. The late General Conference required of Bishop Andrew, the same being 
equally true in the case of Harding, as the condition of his being acceptable to the 
Church, the surrender of rights secured to him, both by civil and ecclesiastical law. 
The purposes of law were contravened and destroyed, and its prerogative and place 
usurped by mere opinion. 

“The requisition in the case was not only extra-judicial, being made in the absence 
of anything like law authorizing the measure, but being made at the same time 
against law, it was usurpation ; and so far as the proceeding complained of is intend- 


129 


ed to establish a principle of action with regard to the future, it gives to the General 
Conference all the attributes of a despotism, claiming the right to govern without, 
above, and against law. The doctrine avowed at the late General Conference, and 
practically endorsed by the majority, that that body may, by simple resolution, advi- 
sory, punitive, or declaratory, repeal an existing law in relation to a particular case, 
leaving it in full force with regard to other cases ; or may enact a new and different 
law, and apply it judicially to the individual case, which led to the enactment, and 
all in a moment, by a single elevation of the hand, is a position, a doctrine so utterly 
revolutionary and disorganizing, as to place in jeopardy at once, both the interests 
and reputation of the Church. ‘The action in the case of Bishop Andrew, not only 
assumed the character, and usurped the place of law, but was clearly an instance of 
ex post facto legislation, by making that an offence after the act, which was not such 
before. The conduct charged as an offence, was at the time, and continues to be, 
under the full protection of a well-understood and standing law of the Church, and 
yet this conduct was made criminal and punishable by the retrospective action of the 
Conference to which we allude. The officially-expressed will of the General Con- 
ference, intended to govern and circumscribe the conduct of Bishop Andrew, without 
reference to existing law, and indeed contrary to it, was made the rule of action, and 
he found guilty of its violation, by acts done before he was made acquainted with it. 
The conduct charged was in perfect consistency with the law of the Church, and 
could only be wrought into an offence by an ex post facto bearing of the after action 
of the General Conference. 

“‘ Bishop Andrew became the owner of slave property involuntarily, several years 
before his marriage, and as the fact, and not the extent of his connexion with slavery, 
constituted his offence, it follows, that for a relation in which he was placed by the 
action of others, and the operation of civil law, and in which, as a citizen of Georgia, 
he was compelled to remain, or be brought in conflict with the laws of the State, he 
was, in violation of the pledge of public law, as we have shown, arrested and pun- 
ished by the General Conference. That body, by direct requirement, such at least 
by implication, commanded him to free his slaves, or suffer official degradation. The 
law of Georgia required him to hold his slaves, or transfer them to be held as such by 
others, under heavy and painful penalties to master and slave. To avoid ecclesias- 
tical punishment and disability, the Church required him either to leave the State of 
his residence, or violate its laws. In this way, taking the judicial decision in Hard- 
ing’s case, and the anomalous action in Bishop Andrew’s, the Church is placed in 
most offensive conflict with the civil authority of the state. Can any country or 
government safely allow the Church to enforce disobedience to civil law, as a Chris- 
tian duty? If such attempts are made to subordinate the civil interests of the state 
to the schemes and purposes of Church innovation, prompted and sustained by the 
bigotry and fanaticism of large masses of ignorant and misguided zealots engaged in 
the conflict in the name of God and conscience, and for the ostensible purposes of 
religious reform, what can be the stability of civil government, or the hopes of those 
seeking its protection? And what, we ask, must be the interests of the South, in 
connexion with such movements ? 

‘“« Tn the instance of slavery in this country, it is but too well-known, that such 
antagonism as is indicated by the preceding facts and developments between the pur- 
poses of the Church and the policy, of the State, must result in the most disastrous 
consequences to both. The slavery of the Southern States can never be reduced in 
amount, or mitigated in form, by such a state of things. The Southern States have 
the sole control of the question, under the authority and by contract of the federal 
constitution, and all hope of removing the evil of slavery, without destroying the na- 
tional compact and the union of the States, must connect with the individual sove- 
reignty of the Southern States, as parties to the federal compact, and the indepen- 
dent policy of each State in relation to slavery, as likely to be influenced by moral 
and political reasons and motives, brought to bear, by proper means and methods, 
upon the understanding and moral sense of the Southern people. All trespass upon 
right—whether as it regards the rights of property or of character—everything like 
aggression, mere denunciation or abuse, must of necessity tend to provoke further 
resistance on the part of the South, and lessen the influence the North might other- 
wise have upon the great mass of the Southern people, in relation to this great and 
exciting interest. The true character and actual relations of slavery in the United 
States, are so predominantly cwil and political, that any attempt to treat the subject 


130 


or control the question upon purely moral and ecclesiastical grounds, can never exert 
any salutary influence South, except in so far as the moral and ecclesiastical shall be 
found strictly subordinate tothe civil and political. This mode of appeal, it is be- 
lieved, will never satisfy the North. The whole Northern portion of the Church, 
speaking through their guides and leaders, is manifesting an increasing disposition to 
form issues upon the subject, so utterly inconsistent with the rights and peace of the 
slaveholding States, that by how far the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the South, 
may contribute to the bringing about of such a state of things, or may fail to resist it, 
the influence of Methodism must be depressed, and the interests of the Church suffer. 
In addition, then, to the fact, that we have already received an amount of injury, be- 
yond what we can bear, except under a separate organization, we have the strongest 
grounds of apprehension, that unless we place ourselves in a state of defence, and 
prepare for independent action, under the distinct jurisdiction we are now authorized 
by the General Conference to resolve upon and organize, we shall soon find our- 
selves so completely subjected to the adverse views and policy of the Northern ma- 
jority, as to be left without right or remedy, except as a mere secession from the 
Church. Now, the case is entirely different, as we propose to do nothing not autho- 
rized in the General Conference Plan of Separation, either expressly or by necessary 
implication. The general view thus far taken of the subject, is tended to show, 
that ‘the annual conferences in the slaveholding States,’ embracing the entire 
Church, South, have found themselves placed in circumstances, by the action of the 
General Conference in May last, which, according to the Declaration of the Southern 
delegates, at the time, render it impracticable to accomplish the objects of the Chris- 
tian ministry and Church organization under the present system of General Confer- 
ence control, and showing by the most clear and conclusive evidence, that there 
exists the most urgent necessity for the ‘separate ecclesiastical connexion,’ constitu- 
tionally provided for by the General Conference upon the basis of the Declaration, 
just adverted to. At the date of the Declaration, the Southern delegates were fullv 
convinced that the frequent and exciting agitation and action in that body on the 
subject of slavery and abolition—as in Harding’s case, and especially the proceedings 
in the case of Bishop Andrew—each being regarded as but a practical exposition of 
the principle of the majority—rendered a separate organization indispensable to the 
success of Methodism in the South. The truth of the Declaration, so far from bemg 
called in question, by the majority, was promptly conceded in the immediate action 
the Conference had upon it, assigning the Declaration as the sole ground or reason of 
the action, which terminated in the adoption of the Plan of Separation, under which 
we are now acting, as a convention, and from the spirit and intention of which, it is 
believed to be the purpose of the convention not to depart, in any of its deliberations 
or final acts. Although the action of this General Conference on the subject of 
slavery, and the relative adverse position of the parties North and South, together 
with the irritating and exasperating evils of constant agitation and frequent attempts 
at legislation, are made, in the Declaration, the grounds of the avowal, that a separate 
organization was necessary to the success of the ministry in the slaveholding States, 
it was by no means intended to convey the idea, or make the impression, that no 
other causes existed rendering a separate organization proper and necessary ; but as 
the action of the Conference on the subject of slavery, was certain to involve the 
Church in the South in immediate and alarming difficulty, and it was believed that 
this could be so shown to the majority, as to induce them to consent to some course 
of action in remedy of the evil, the complaint of the declaration was confined to the 
simple topic of slavery. It will be perceived that the case of: Bishop Andrew, al- 
though prominently introduced, is not relied upon as exclusively furnishing the data 
of this conclusion at which we have arrived. The entire action of the General Con- 
ference, so frequently brought to view, and which is made the ground of dissent and 
action, both in the Protest and Declaration of the Southern delegates, must be under- 
stood, as belonging to the premises and language employed, as including all the prin- 
ciples avowed as well as the action had by the late General Conference on the sub- 
ject of slavery. The attempt to disclaim the judicial character of the action in 
Bishop Andrew’s case, and show it to be merely advisory, cannot affect the preced- 
ing reasoning: for, first, the disclaimer is as equivocal in character as the original 
action; and, secondly, the reasoning in support of the disclaimer negatives the sup- 
position of mere advice, because it involves issues coming legitimately within the 
province of judicial process and legal determination ; and, thirdly, Bishop Andrew is, 


O* 





131 


by the explanation of the disclaimer itself, held as responsible for his conduct, in view 
of the alleged advice, as he could have been held by the original action without the 
explanation. While, therefore, the explanation giving the original action an advisory 
character, notwithstanding the imconsistency involved, fully protects Bishops Soule 
and Andrew from even the shadow of blame in the course they have pursued, the 
entire action in the case, and especially when connected with the case of Harding, 
as alluded to in the Declaration, fully sustains the general view of the subject we 
have taken in this report. The Southern delegates at the General Conference, in 
presenting to that body their Declaration and Protest, acted, and they continue to act, 
as the representatives of the South, under the full conviction that the principles and 
policy avowed by the Northern majority, are such as to render their public and prac- 
tical renunciation by the Southern Methodist ministry and people, necessary to the 
safety, not less than the success of the Church in the South. 

“ Other views of the subject, however, must claim a share of our attention. Among 
the many weighty reasons which influence the Southern conferences in seeking to be 
released from the jurisdiction of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, as now constituted, are the novel, and, as we think, dangerous doctrines, 
practically avowed and endorsed by that body and the Northern portion of the 
Church generally, with regard to the constitution of the Church, and the constitu- 
tional rights and powers respectively of the episcopacy and the General Conference. 
In relation to the first, it is confidently, although most unaccountably, maintained 
that the six short restrictive rules, which were adopted in 1808, and first became 
obligatory, as an amendment to the constitution, in 1812, are in fact the true and only 
constitution of the Church. This single position, should it become an established 
principle of action to the extent it found favour with the last General Conference, 
must subvert the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It must be seen 
at once, that the position leaves many of the organic laws and most important insti- 
tutions of the Church entirely unprotected, and at the mercy of a mere and ever- 
fluctuating majority of the General Conference. Episcopacy, for example, although 
protected in the abstract, in general terms, may be entirely superseded or destroyed 
by the simple omission to elect or consecrate bishops, neither of which is provided 
for in the restrictive articles. The whole itinerant system, except general superin- 
tendency, is without protection in the restrictive rules ; and there is nothing in them 
preventing the episcopacy from restricting their superintendency to local and seitled 
pastors, rather than a travelling ministry, and thus destroying the most distinctive 
feature of Wesleyan Methodism. So far as the restrictive rules are concerned, the 
annual conferences are without protection, and might also be destroyed by the Gene- 
ral Conference at any time. If the new constitutional theory be correct, class- 
leaders and private members are as eligible, upon the basis of the constitution, to a 
seat in the General Conference, as any ministers of the Church. Societies, too, 
instead of annual conferences, may elect delegates, and may elect laymen instead of 
ministers, or local instead of travelling ministers. Very few indeed of the more fun- 
damental and distinguishing elements of Methodism, deeply and imperishably im- 
bedded in the affection and veneration of the Church, and vital to its very existence, 
are even alluded to in the restrictive articles. This theory assumes the self-refuted 
absurdity, that the General Conference is in fact the government of the Church, if 
not the Church itself. With no other constitution than these mere restrictions upon 
the powers and rights of the General Conference, the government and discipline of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, as a system of organized laws and well-adjusted in- 
strumentalities for the spread of the Gospel and the diffusion of piety, and whose liv- 
ing principles of energy and action have so long commanded the admiration of the 
world, would soon cease even to exist. The startling assumption, that a bishop of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, instead of holding office under the constitution, and by 
tenure of law, and the faithful performance of duty, is nothing in his character of bishop, 
but a mere officer, at will, of the General Conference, and may accordingly be deposed 
at any time, with or without cause, accusation, proof, or form of trial, as a dominant 
majority may capriciously elect, or party interests suggest; and that the General 
Conference may do, by right, whatever is not prohibited by the restrictive rules; 
and, with this single exception, possess power, ‘supreme and all-controlling,’ and 
this, in all possible forms of its manifestation, legislative, judicial, and executive ; 
the same men claiming to be at the same time both the fountain and functionaries of 
all the powers of government, which powers, thus mingled and concentrated into a 


132 


common force, may at any time be employed at the prompting of their own interests, 
caprice, or ambition ;—such wild and revolutionary assumptions, so unlike the faith 
and discipline of Methodism, as we have been taught them, we are compelled to regard 
as fraught with mischief and ruin to the best interests of the Church, and as furnish- 
ing a strong additional reason way we should avail ourselves of the warrant we now 
have, but may never again obtain, from the General Conference, to ‘ establish an eccle- 
siastical connexion,’ embracing only the annual conferences in the slaveholding States. 

‘Without intending anything more than a general specification of the dis- 
abilities, under which the Southern part of the Church labours, in view of existing 
difficulties, and must continue to do so until they are removed, we must not 
omit to state, that should we submit to the action of the late General Conference, 
and decline a separate organization, it would be to place and finally confirm 
the whole Southern ministry in the relation of an inferior caste, the effect of 
which, in spite of all effort to the contrary, would be such a relation, if not (as we 
think) real degradation, of the ministry, as to destroy its influence to a great, a most 
fearful extent throughout the South. A practical proscription, under show of legal 
right, has long been exercised towards the South, with regard to the higher offices 
of the Church, especially the episcopacy. ‘To this, however, the South submitted 
with patient endurance, and was willing further to submit, in order to maintain the 
peace and unity of the Church, while the princzple involved was disavowed, and de- 
cided to be unjust, as by the decision of the General Conference in 1840. But when, 
in 1844, the General Conference declared by their action, without the forms of legis- 
lative or judicial process, that the mere providential ownership of slave property, in a 
State where emancipation is legally prohibited under all circumstances, and can only 
be effected by special legislative enactment, was hereafter to operate as a forfeiture 
of right in all similar cases, the law of the Church and the decision of the preceding 
General Conference to the contrary notwithstanding, the Southern ministry were 
compelled to realize, that they were deliberately fixed by the brand of common 
shame, in the degrading relation of standing inferiority to ministers, not actually, nor 
yet liable to be, connected with slavery, and that they were published to the Church 
and the world as belonging to a caste in the ministry, from which the higher officers 
of the Church could never be selected. 

“To submit, under such circumstances, would have been a practical, a most humi- 
liating recognition of the inferiority of caste, attempted to be fixed upon us by the 
Northern majority, and would have justly authorized the inference of a want of con- 
scious integrity and self-respect, well calculated to destroy both the reputation and 
influence of the ministry in all the slaveholding States. It may be no virtue to ayow 
it, but we confess we have no humility courting the grace of such a baptism. The 
higher objects, therefore, of the Christian ministry, not less than conscious right and 
self-respect, demanded resistance on the part of the Southern ministry and Church ; 
and these unite with other reasons, in vindicating the plea of necessity, upon which 
the meeting and action of this convention are based, with the consent and approval 
of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The variety of in- 
terests involved, renders it necessary that the brief view of the subject we are allowed 
to take, be varied accordingly. 

“Unless the Southern conferences organize as proposed, it is morally certain, in 
view of the evidence before the committee, that the Gospel, now regularly and suc- 
cessfully dispensed by the ministers of these conferences to about a million of slaves, 
in their various fields of missionary enterprise and pastoral charge, must, to a great 
extent, be withheld from them, and immense masses of this unfortunate class of our 
fellow-beings be left to perish, as the result of Church interference with the civil 
affairs and relations of the country. 

‘«« The committee are compelled to believe, that the mere division of jurisdiction, 
as authorized by the General Conference, cannot affect either the moral or legal 
unity of the great American family of Christians, known as the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and this opinion is concurred in by the ablest jurists of the country. We 
do nothing but what we are expressly authorized to do by the supreme, or rather 
highest legislative power of the Church. Would the Church authorize us to do 
wrong? ‘The division relates only to the power of general jurisdiction, which it is 
not proposed to destroy or even reduce, but simply to invest it in two great organs 
of Church action and control, instead of one as at present. Such a change in the 
present system of general control, cannot disturb the moral unity of the Church ; for 


eS ee 


133 


it is strictly an agreed modification of General Conference jurisdiction, and such 
agreement and consent of parties must preclude the idea of disunion. In view of 
what is the alleged disunion predicated? Is the purpose and act of becoming a sepa- 
rate organization proof of disunion or want of proper Church unity? This cannot 
be urged with any show of consistency, inasmuch as ‘ the several annual confer- 
ences in General Conference assembled,’ that is to say, the Church through only 
its constitutional organ of action, on all subjects involving the power of legislation, 
not only agreed to the separate organization South, but made full constitutional pro- 
vision for carrying it into effect. It is a separation by consent of parties, under the 
highest authority of the Church. Is it intended to maintain, that the unity of the 
Church depends upon the modal uniformity of the jurisdiction in question? If this 
be so, the Methodist Episcopal Church has lost its unity at several different times. 
The general jurisdiction of the Church has undergone modifications, at several dif- 
ferent times, not less vital, if not greatly more so, than the one now proposed. The 
high conventional powers, of which we are so often reminded, exercised in the 
organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, were in the hands of a conference 
of unordained lay preachers, under the sole superintendence of an appointee of Mr. 
Wesley. This was the first General Conference type and original form of the juris- 
diction in question.” The jurisdictional power now proposed by the General Con- 
ference, was for years exercised by small annual conferences, without any defined 
boundaries, and acting separately on all measures proposed for their determination. 
This general power of jurisdiction next passed into the hands of the bishops’ coun- 
cil, consisting of some ten persons, where it remained for a term of years. Next. 
it passed into the hands of the whole itinerant ministry, in full connexion, and was 
exercised by them, in collective action, as a General Conference of the whole body, 
met together at the same time. The power was afterwards vested in the whole 
body of travelling elders, and from thence finally passed into the hands of delegates, 
elected by the annual conferences, to meet and act quadrennially as a General Con- 
ference, under constitutional restrictions and limitations. Here are several suc- 
cessive re-organizations of General Conference jurisdiction, each involving a much 
more material change than that contemplated in the General Conference plan, by 
authority of which this Convention is about to erect the sixteen annual conferences 
in the slaveholding States into a separate organization. We change no principle in 
the existing theory of General Conference jurisdiction. We distinctly recognise the 
jurisdiction of a delegated General Conference, receiving its appointment and autho- 
rity from the whole constituency of annual conferences. The only change in fact 
or form, will be, that the delegates of the ‘annual conferences in the slaveholding 
States,’ as authorized in the Plan of Separation, will meet in one General Confer- 
ence assembly of their own, and act in behalf only of their own constituency, and 
in the regulation of their own affairs, consistently with the good faith and fealty they 
owe the authority and laws of the several States in which they reside, without inter- 
fering with affairs beyond their jurisdiction, or suffering foreign interference with 
their own. And in proceeding to do this, we have all the authority it was in the 
power of the Methodist Episcopal Church to confer. We have, also, further, ex- 
ample and precedent in the history of Methodism, to show that there is nothing 
irregular or inconsistent with Church order or unity in the separation proposed. 
The great Wesleyan Methodist family, everywhere one in faith and practice, 
already exists under several distinct and unconnected jurisdictions—there is no 
jurisdictional or connexional union between them; and yet it has never been pre- 
tended that these several distinct organizations were in any sense inconsistent with 
Church unity. If the Southern conferences proceed, then, to the establishment of 
another distinct jurisdiction, without any change of doctrine or discipline, except in 
matters necessary to the mere economical adjustment of the system, will it furnish 
any reason for supposing that the real unity of the Church is affected by what all 
must perceive to be a simple division of jurisdiction? When the conferences in 
the slaveholding States are separately organized as a distinct ecclesiastical Con- 
nexion, they will only be what the General Conference authorized them to be. Can 
this be irregular or subyersive of Church unity? Acting under the provisional Plan 
of Separation, they must, although a separate organization, remain in essential union 
with, and be a part and parcel of, the Methodist Episcopal Church, in every Scrip- 
tural and moral view of the subject ; for what they do is with the full consent, and 
has the official sanction of the Church as represented in the General Conference. 


134 


The jurisdiction we are about to establish and assert as separate and independent, is 
expressly declined and ceded by the General Conference, as originally its own, to 
the Southern Conferences, for the specific purpose of being established and asserted 
in the manner proposed. All idea of secession, or an organization alien in right or 
relation to the Methodist Episcopal Church, is forever precluded by the terms and 
conditions of the authorized Plan of Separation. In whatever sense we are separa- 
tists or seceders, we are such by authority—the highest authority of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. To whatever extent, or in whatever aspect we are not true and 
faithful ministers and members of that Church, such delinquency or misfortune is 
authenticated by her act and approval, and she declares us to be ‘ without blame.’ 
‘Ministers of every grade and office in the Methodist Episcopal Church, may, as 
they prefer, without blame, attach themselves to the Church, South.’ Bishops, 
elders, and deacons, come into the Southern organization at their own election, 
under permission from the General Conference, not only accredited as ministers of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, but with credentials limiting the exercise of their 
functions within the Methodist Episcopal Church. Is it conceivable that the General 
Conference would so act and hold such language in relation to an ecclesiastical 
Connexion, which was to be regarded as a secession from the Church? Do not 
such act and language, and the whole Plan of Separation, rather show that, as the 
South had asked, so the General Conference intended to authorize, a simple division 
of its own jurisdiction, and nothing more ? 

“ All idea of secession, or schism, or loss of right or title, as ministers of the Me- 
thodist Episcopal Church, being precluded by the specific grant or authority under 
which we act, as well as for other reasons assigned, many considerations might be 
urged, strongly suggesting the fitness and propriety of the separate jurisdiction con- 
templated, rendered necessary, as we have seen, upon other and different grounds ; 
and among these the increased value of the representative principle, likely to be se- 
cured by the change, is by no means unworthy of notice. At the first representa- 
tive General Conference, thirty-three years ago, each delegate represented five 
travelling ministers and about two thousand members, and the body was of con- 
venient size for the transaction of business. At the late General Conference, each 
delegate was the representative of twenty-one ministers and more than five thou- 
sand members, and the body was inconveniently large for the purpose of deliberation 
and action. Should the number of delegates in the General Conference be increased 
with the probable growth of the Church, the body will soon become utterly un- 
wieldy. Should the number be reduced, while the ministry and membership are 
multiplying, the representative principle would become to be little more than nomi- 
nal, and, in the same proportion, without practical value. Besides that the proposed 
re-organization of jurisdiction will remedy this evil, at least to a great extent, it will 
result in the saving of much time and expense, and useful services to the Church, 
connected with the travel and protracted sessions of the General Conference, not 
only as it regards the delegates, but also the bench of bishops, whose general over- 
sight might become much more minute and pastoral in its character, by means of 
such an arrangement. When, in 1808, the annual conferences resolved upon 
changing the form of General Conference jurisdiction, the precise reasons we have 
yust noticed were deemed sufficient ground and motive for the change introduced ; 
and as we are seeking only a similar change of jurisdiction, although for other pur- 
poses as well as this, the facts to which we ask attention are certainly worthy of 
bemg taken into the estimate of advantages likely to result from a separate and 
independent organization, especially as the ministry and membership, since 1808, 
have increased full seven hundred per centum, and should they continue to in- 
crease, in something like the same ratio, for thirty years to come, under the present 
system of General Conference jurisdiction, some such change as that authorized by 
the late General Conference must be resorted to, or the Church resign itself to the 
virtual extinction of the representative principle, as an important element of govern- 
ment action. 

‘In establishing a separate jurisdiction as before defined and explained, so far from 
affectmg the moral oneness and integrity of the great Methodist body in America, 
the effect will be to secure a very different result. In resolving upon a separate 
Connexion, as we are about to do, the one great and controlling motive is to restore 
and perpetuate the peace and unity of the Church. At present we have neither ; nor 
are we likely to have, should the Southern and Northern conferences remain in con- 


135 


nexional relation, as heretofore. Inferring effects from causes known to be in exis- 
tence and active operation, agitation on the subject of slavery is certain to continue, 
and frequent action in the General Conference is equally certain, and the result, as 
heretofore, will be excitement and discontent, aggression and resistance. Should 
the South retire and decline all further conflict, by the erection of the Southern con- 
ferences into a separate jurisdiction, as authorized by the General Conference plan, 
agitation in the Church cannot be brought in contact with the South, and the former 
irritation and evils of the controversy must, to a great extent, cease, or at any rate 
so lose their disturbing force as to become comparatively harmless. Should the 
Northern Church continue to discuss and agitate, it will be within their own borders 
and among themselves, and the evil effects upon the South must, to say the least, 
be greatly lessened. At present, the consolidation of all the annual conferences, 
under the jurisdictional control of one General Conference, always giving a decided 
Northern majority, places it in the power of that majority to manage and control the 
interests of the Church, in the slaveholding States, as they see proper, and we have 
no means of protection against the evils certain to be inflicted upon us, if we judge 
the future from the past. The whole power of legislation is in the General Confer- 
ence, and as that body is now constituted, the annual conferences of the South are 
perfectly powerless in the resistance of wrong, and have no alternative left them but 
unconditional submission. And such submission to the views and action of the 
Northern majority on the subject of slavery, it is now demonstrated, must bring dis- 
aster and ruin upon Southern Methodism, by rendering the Church an object of dis- 
trust on the part of the state. In this way, the assumed conservative power of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, with regard to the civil union of the States, is to a 
great extent destroyed, and we are compelled to believe that it is the interest and 
becomes the duty of the Church in the South to seek to exert such conservative in- 
fluence in some other form; and after the most mature deliberation and careful ex- 
amination of the whole subject, we know of nothing so likely to effect the object, as 
the jurisdictionai separation of the great Church parties, unfortunately involved in a 
teligious and ecclesiastical controversy about an affair of state—a question of civil 
policy—over which the Church has no control, and with which, it is believed, she has 
noright to interfere. Among the nearly five hundred thousand ministers and members 
of the conferences represented in this convention, we do not know one not deeply and 
intensely interested in the safety and perpetuity of the National Union, nor can we for 
a moment hesitate to pledge them all against any course of action or policy, not cal- 
culated, in their judgment, to render that union as immortal as the hopes of patriotism 
would have it to be! 

“Before closing the summary view of the whole subject taken in this report, we 
cannot refrain from a brief notice of the relations and interests of Southern border 
conferences. ‘These, it must be obvious, are materially different from those of the 
more Southern conferences. ‘They do not, for the present, feel the pressure of the 
strong necessity impelling the South proper to immediate separation. They are, 
however, involved with regard to the subject-matter of the controversy, and com- 
mitted to well-defined principles, in the same way, and to the same extent, with the 
most Southern conferences. They have with almost perfect unanimity, by public 
official acts, protested against the entire action of the late General Conference on the 
subject of slavery, and in reference to the relative rights and powers of episcopacy 
and the General Conference, as not only wnconstilutional, but revolutionary, and, 
therefore, dangerous to the best interests of the Church. They have solemnly de- 
clared, by approving and endorsing the Declaration, the Protest, and Address of the 
Southern delegates, that the objects of their ministry cannot be accomplished, under 
the existing jurisdiction of the General Conference, without reparation for past injury 
and security against future aggression ; and unless the border conferences have good 
and substantial reasons to believe such reparation and security not only probable, but 
so certain as to remove reasonable doubt, they have, so far as principle and pledge 
are concerned, the same motive for action with the conferences South of them. 
Against the principles thus avowed by every one of the conferences in question, the 
anti-slavery and abolition of the North have, through official Church organs, declared 
the most open and undisguised hostility, and these conferences are reduced to the 
necessity of deciding upon adherence to the principles they have officially avowed, or 
of a resort to expediency to adjust difficulties in some unknown form, which they 
have said could only be adjusted by substantial reparation for past injury, and good 


136 


and sufficient warrant against future aggression. The question is certainly one of 
no common interest. Should any of the border conferences, or societies South, af- 
filiate with the North, the effect, so far as we can see, will be to transfer the seat of 
war to the remoter South—to these border districts ; and what, we ask, will be the 
security of these districts against the moral ravages of such a war? What protection 
or security will the Discipline, or the conservatism of the middle conferences afford ? 
Of what avail were these at the last General Conference, and has either more influ- 
ence now than then? The controversy of a large and rapidly-inereasing portion of 
the North, is not so much with the South as with the Discipline, because it tolerates 
slavery in any form whatever; and should the Southern conferences remain under 
the present common jurisdiction, or any slaveholding portions of the South unite in 
the Northern Connexion in the event of division, it requires very little discernment 
to see that this controversy will never cease until every slaveholder or every aboli- 
tionist is out of the Connexion. Besides, the border conferences have a great and 
most delicate interest at stake, in view of their ¢erritorial, and civil, and political re- 
lations, which it certainly behooves them to weigh well and examine with care in 
coming to the final conclusion, which is to identify them with the North or the South. 
Border districts going with the North, after and notwithstanding the action of the 
border conferences, must, in the nature of things, as found in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, affiliate, to a great extent, with the entire aggregate of Northern anti-slavery 
and abolition, as now embarked against the interests of the South; as also with all 
the recent official violations of right, of law, and Discipline, against which the South 
is now contending. In doing this, they must of necessity, if we have reasoned cor- 
rectly, elect, and contribute their influence, to retain in the Connexion of their choice 
all the principles and elements of strife and discord which have so long and fearfully 
convulsed the Church. Will this be the election of Southern border sections and 
districts, or will they remain where, by location, civil and political ties and relations, 
and their own avowed principles, they properly belong—firmly planted upon the long 
and well-tried platform of the Discipline of our common choice, and from which the 
Methodism of the South has never manifested any disposition to swerve? To the 
Discipline the South has always been loyal. By it she has abided in every trial. 
Jealously has she cherished and guarded that ‘“ form of sound words’”—the faith, the 
ritual, and the government of the Church. It was Southern defence against Northern 
invasion of the Discipline, which brought on the present struggle ; and upon the Dis- 
cipline, the whole Discipline, the South proposes to organize, under authority of the 
General Conference, a separate Connexion of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The 
result, from first to last, has been consented to on the part of the South with the 
greatest reluctance. 

“« After the struggle came on, at the late General Conference, the Southern delegates, 
as they had often done before, manifested the most earnest desire, and did all in their 
power, to maintain jurisdictional union with the North, without sacrificing the interests 
of the South: when this was found impracticable, a connexional union was pro- 
posed, and the rejection of this, by the North, led to the projection and adoption of 
the present General Conference Plan of Separation. Every overture of compromise, 
every plan of reconciliation and adjustment, regarded as at all eligible, or likely to 
succeed, was offered by the South and rejected by the North. All subsequent at- 
tempts at compromise, have failed im like manner, and the probability of any such 
adjustment, if not extinct, is lessening every day, and the annual conferences in the 
slaveholding States are thus left to take their position upon the ground assigned 
them by the General Conference of 1844, as a distinct ecclesiastical Connexion, 
ready and most willing to treat with the Northern division of the Church, at any 
time, in view of adjusting the difficulties of this controversy, upon terms and princi- 
ples which may be safe and satisfactory to both. 

“ Such we regard as the true position of the annual conferences represented in this 
convention. Therefore, in view of all the principles and interests involved, appealing 
to the Almaghty Searcher of hearts, for the sincerity of our motives, and humbly in- 
voking the Divine blessing upon our action, 

** Be at resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, in the slaveholding States, in General Convention assembled, 
That it is right, expedient, and necessary, to erect the annual conferences, represented 
in this convention, into a distinct ecclesiastical Connexion, separate from the juris- 
diction of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as at present 


“ 


137 


constituted ; and, accordingly, we, the delegates of said annual conferences, acting 
under the provisional Plan of Separation adopted by the General Conference of 1844, 
do solemnly declare the jurisdiction hitherto exercised over said annual conferences, 
by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, entirely dissolved ; 
and that said annual conferences shall be, and they hereby are constituted a separate 
ecclesiastical Connexion, under the provisional Plan of Separation aforesaid, and 
based upon the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, comprehending the 
doctrines, and entire moral, ecclesiastical, and economical rules and regulations of 
said Discipline, except only in so far as verbal alterations may be necessary to a dis- 
tinct organization, and to be known by the style and title of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. 

“ Resolved, That Bishops Soule and Andrew be, and they are hereby respectfully 
and cordially requested by this convention to unite with, and become regular and 
constitutional bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, upon the basis of 
the Plan of Separation adopted by the late General Conference. 

Resolved, That this convention request the bishops presiding at the ensuing ses- 
sions of the border conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to incor- 
porate into the aforesaid conferences any societies, or stations adjoming the line of 
division, provided such societies or stations, by the majority of the members, according 
to the provisions of the Plan of Separation aforesaid, request such an arrangement. 

“« Resolved, That answer the 2d of 3d Section, Chapter 1st, of the Book of Dis- 
cipline be so altered and amended as to read as follows: ‘ The General Conference 
shall meet on the 1st of May, in the year of our Lord, 1846, in the town of Peters- 
burg, Va., and thenceforward, in the month of April or May, once in four years 
successively, and in such place and on such day as shall be fixed on by the preceding 
General Conference,’ &c. 

“ Resolved, That the first answer in the same chapter, be altered by striking out 
the word ‘ twenty-one,’ and inserting in its place the word ‘ fourteen,’ so as to entitle 
each annual conference to one delegate for every fourteen members. 

“« Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed, whose duty it shall be to 
prepare and report to the General Conference of 1846, a revised copy of the present 
Discipline, with such changes as are necessary to conform it to the organization of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

“ Resolved, That while we cannot abandon or compromise the principles of action 
upon which we proceed to a separate organization in the South, nevertheless, 
cherishing a sincere desire to maintain Christian union and fraternal intercourse with 
the Church, North, we shall always be ready, kindly and respectfully to entertain, 
and duly and carefully consider, any proposition or plan, having for its object, the 
union of the two great bodies, in the North and South, whether such proposed union 
be jurisdictional or connexional.”’ 


The following are Bishop Soule’s letter of invitation to Bishop Andrew to perform 
episcopal functions, and Bishop Andrew’s reply :— 


‘Lebanon, Onto, Sept. 26, 1844. 
“ To the Rev. James O. Andrew, D.D., Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 


‘(My Drar Bisnop,—Since the close of the recent eventful session of the General 
Conference, I have been watching, with deep solicitude, the ‘signs of the times,’ and 
tracing causes, as far as I was able, to their ultimate issues. Some general results, 
growing out of the action of the Conference, it required no prophetic vision to fore- 
see. ‘To prevent the measures which, in my judgment, would lead to these results 
with demonstrative certainty, I laboured day and night with prayers and tears, till 
the deed was done,—the eventful resolution passed. From that perilous hour 
my hands hung down, discouragement filled my heart, and the last hope of the unity 
of our beloved Zion well-nigh fled from earth to heaven. My last effort to avert the 
threatening storm appears in the joint recommendation of all the bishops to suspend 
all action in the case until the ensuing General Conference. At the presentation of 
this document some brethren perceived that instead of light, the darkness around 
them was increased tenfold. Others will judge, have judged already. And those 
who come after us will examine the history of our acts. ‘The document was respect- 
fully \aid upon the table, probably under the influence of deep regret that ‘ our bishops 


138 


should enter the arena of controversy in the General Conference.’ But it cannot— 
does not sleep there. 1 have heard many excellent ministers, and distinguished lay- 
men in our own communion, not in the slave States, refer to it as a measure of sound 
Christian policy, and with deep regret that the Conference had not adopted it. Many 
of our Northern brethren seem now deeply to deplore the division of their Church. 
O that there had been forethought, as well as afterthought! I have seen various 
plans of compromise for the adjustment of our differences and preservation of the 
unity of the Church. The most prominent plan provides that a fundamental article 
in the treaty shall be, that no abolitionist or slaveholder shall be eligible to the office 
of a bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Alas for us! Where are our men 
of wisdom, of experience? ‘Where are our fathers and brethren who have analyzed 
the elements of civil or ecclesiastical compacts? Who are the ‘high contracting 
parties ?’ and will they create a caste in the constitutional eldership in the Church of 
Christ? Will this tend to harmonize and consolidate the body? Brethren, North 
and South, will know that the cause must be removed that the effect may cease; that 
the fountain must be dried up before the stream will cease to flow. But I must 
pause on this subject. The time has not fully arrived for me to define my posi- 
tion in regard to the causes and remedies of the evils which now agitate and dis- 
tract our once-united and peaceful body. Still I trust I have given such proofs at 
different times, and under different circumstances, as not to render my position doubt- 
ful in the judgment of sober, discriminating men, either North or South. The Gene- 
ral Conference spake in the language of wisdom and sound Christian policy, when, 
in the pastoral address of 1836, it solemnly and affectionately advised the ministers 
and members of the Church to abstain from all agitation of the exciting subject of 
slavery and its abolition. Nor was the adoption of the report of the committee on 
the memorial of our brethren from a portion of Virginia, within the bounds of the Bal- 
timore Conference, less distinguished by the same characteristics of our holy Chris- 
tianity, and the sound policy of our Discipline im providing for the case. 

“Tt has often been asked, through the public journals, and otherwise, ‘ Why Bishop 
Andrew was not assigned his regular portion of the episcopal work for the four ensu- 
ing years, on the plan of visitation formed by the bishops, and published in the offi- 
cial papers?’ It devolves on the majority of my colleagues in the episcopacy, (if, 
indeed, we have an episcopacy,) rather than on me, to answer this question. Our 
difference of opinion in the premises, I have no doubt, was in Christian honesty and 
sincerity. Dismissing all further reference to the painful past till I see you in the 
South, let me now most cordially invite you to meet me at the Virginia Conference, 
at Lynchburg, November 13th, 1844, should it please a gracious Providence to ena- 
ble me to be there. And I earnestly desire that you would, if practicable, make 
your arrangements to be with me at all the Southern conferences in my division of 
the work for the present year, where I am sure your services will not be ‘ unaccepta- 
ble.’ Iam the more solicitous that you should be at Lynchburg from the fact that 
my present state of health creates a doubt whether I shall be able to reach it. I am 
now labouring, and have been for nearly three weeks, under the most severe attack 
of asthma which I have had for six or seven years,—some nights unable to lie down 
for a moment. Great prostration of the vital functions, and indeed of the whole physi- 
cal system, is the consequence. But no effort of mine shall be wanting to meet my 
work ; and the inducements to effort are greatly increased by the present position of 
the Church, and the hope of relief from my present affliction by the influence of a 
milder and more congenial climate. 1 cannot conclude without an expression of my 
sincere sympathy for you, and the second of your joys and sorrows, in the deep afflic- 
tion through which you have been called to pass. May the grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christ sustain you both. Yours with sentiments of affection and esteem, 

*¢‘Josnua Sous.” 


“‘CuaruEstTon, S. C., Nov. 4, 1844. 

“My Dear Brorner,—lI perceive from the resolutions passed at the various 
Church meetings in the South, that there is a very general expression of opinion in 
favour of my taking my appropriate share of episcopal labour ; and as } have received, 
both from public meetings and individual correspondents, from ministers and lay- 
men, the most earnest and affectionate invitations to attend the sessions of most 
of the Southern and South-Western conferences, I deem it due to all concerned to 
state definitely the course I have pursued, and had resolved to pursue, till the meet- 


139 


ing of the convention at Louisville, Kentucky. Immediately after the passing of the 
memorable resolution in my case in the late General Conference, I left the city of 
New-York, and spent the next day, which was the Sabbath, at Newark, New-Jersey, 
to fulfil an engagement previously made ; after which I retummed to the bosom of my 
family in Georgia. From Newark I addressed a letter to Bishop Soule, assigning 
the reasons for my departure, and stating in substance to the following effect, viz : 
That I did not know whether the bishops would feel authorized, in view of the recent 
action of the General Conference, to assign me a place among them for the next four 
years, unless that body should condescend te explain its action more definitely ; but 
that if the bishops should see proper to assign me my share in the episcopal visita- 
tions, I should be glad that they would let my work commence as late in the season 
as convenient, inasmuch as I had been absent from my family most of the time for 
the last twelve months; but that if they did not feel authorized, in view of the action 
of the General Conference, to give me work, I should not feel hurt with them. It 
will be remembered that there was subsequently introduced into the Conference a reso- 
lution intended to explain the meaning of the former one as being simply advisory ; 
this was promptly laid on the table, which left no doubt of the correctness of the 
opinion I had previously formed, that the General Conference designed the action as 
mandatory. 1 understand that the Southern delegates afterwards notified the bishops 
in due form, that if they should give me my portion of the episcopal work, I should 
attend to it. The plan of episcopal visitation, however, was drawn up and subse- 
quently published without my name, as is well known. I have heard it rumoured, 
indeed, that this plan was so arranged that I could be taken into it at any tume when 
I should signify a wish to be so imtroduced; and some anonymous correspondents 
of the Western and Southern Christian Advocates have expressed themselves in a 
manner which indicated some surprise, that I had not availed myself of this kind 
provision of the episcopal board. Now, in reply to all this I have only to say, that 
- I presume those gentlemen are mistaken entirely as to the practicability of any such 
arrangement ; for if the bishops had contemplated the possibility of any such change 
in their plan, it is but fair to infer that either they would have appended to their pub- 
lished arrangement some note to that effect, or else that they would have informed 
me of it by letter; and forasmuch as they have done neither, I presume that the 
aforementioned rumour is altogether without foundation. However, I may be mista- 
ken in this judgment, and I know nothing of the plans of the bishops, other than what 
is published, not having received a line from one of them since the General Confer- 
ence, save the accompanying letter from Bishop Soule. In view of all these facts, 
I came deliberately to the conclusion that the bishops thought it most prudent, under 
the circumstances, not to invite me to perform any official action ; and as I wished to 
be the cause of no unpleasant feeling to the bishops or preachers, I determined not 
to visit any of the annual conferences at their respective sessions. At the urgent 
solicitation, however, of many of the preachers of the Kentucky Conference, I so far 
changed my determination as to make an effort to reach that conference about the 
last day or two of the session ; but a very unexpected detention on the road prevented 
the accomplishment of my purpose. Further reflection brought me back to my origi- 
nal purpose ; and I abstained from visiting Holston and Missouri. On the important 
questions which now agitate us, I wished the conferences to act in view of the great 
facts and principles involved, apart from any influence which my personal presence 
among them might produce. I had laid out my plan of work for the winter: I de- 
signed to visit different portions of the Church in the slaveholding States, and pub- 
lish among them, as I was able, the unsearchable riches of Christ. The foregoing 
communication from Bishop Soule furnishes me a sufficient reason to change my 
arrangements, and to attend, in connexion with him, the conferences allotted to him 
during the winter, in the distribution of episcopal labour. 

‘“¢ And now permit me, in conclusion, to tender to my brethren, both of the South 
and South-West, my most cordial and grateful acknowledgments for their kind ex- 
pressions of sympathy for me, in the storm through which I have been passing, and 
to invoke their most fervent and continued prayers for me and mine, and especially 
for the Church of God. I thank them for the many affectionate invitations to attend 
their conferences, and most joyfully would I have been with them but for the reasons 
indicated above. May God abundantly bless us, and guide us into the way of truth 
and peace. James O. ANDREW.” 


140 


The action of the conferences of Kentucky, Missouri, Holston, and Tennessee, in 
1845, subsequent to the Louisville Convention, from which an extract was read, is 
thus set forth—Page 108. 


“We now come to notice the movements of conferences in the slaveholding States, 
and which were represented in the Louisville Convention. The first in order of these 
is Kentucky. It met September 10, 1845, in Frankfort, Kentucky, and was attended 
by Bishops Soule and Andrew. On the first day of the session the following pre- 
amble and resolutions were offered to the conference, and adopted :— 


‘*« Whereas, the long-continued agitation and excitement on the subject of slavery 
and abolition in the Methodist Episcopal Church, and especially such agitation and 
excitement in the last General Conference, in connexion with the civil and domestic 
relations of Bishop Andrew, as the owner of slave property, by inheritance and mar- 
riage, assumed such form, in the action had in the case of Bishop Andrew, as to com- 
pel the Southern and South-Western delegates in that body to believe, and formally 
and solemnly to declare, that a state of things must result therefrom which would 
render impracticable the successful prosecution of the objects and purposes of 
the Christian ministry and Church organization in the annual conferences within 
the limits of the slaveholding States,—upon the basis of which declaration the 
General Conference adopted a provisional Plan of Separation, in view of which 
said conferences might, if they found it necessary, form themselves into a separate 
General Conference jurisdiction ; and whereas, said conferences, acting first in their 
separate conference capacity, as distinct ecclesiastical bodies, and then collectively, 
by their duly-appointed delegates and representatives, in general convention as- 
sembled, have found and declared such separation necessary, and have further de- 
clared a final dissolution, in fact and form, of the jurisdictional connexion hitherto 
existing between them and the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church as heretofore constituted, and have organized the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, upon the unaltered basis of the doctrines and Discipline of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church in the United States before its separation, as authorized by the 
General Conference ; and whereas, said Plan of Separation, as adopted by the Gene- 
ral Conference, and carried out by the late convention of Southern delegates in the 
city of Louisville, Kentucky, and also recognised by the entire episcopacy as author- 
itative and of binding obligation in the whole range of their administration, provides 
that conferences bordering on the line of division between the two connexions— 
North and South—shall determine, by vote of a majority of their members respect- 
ively, to which jurisdiction they will adhere ; therefore, in view of all the premises, 
as one of the border conferences, and subject to the above-named rule,— 


*¢ Resolved by the Kentucky Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
That in conforming to the General Conference Plan of Separation, it is necessary 
that this conference decide by a vote of a majority of its members to which Connexion 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church it will adhere, and that we now proceed to make 
such decision. 


‘*¢ Resolved, That any member or members of this conference declining to adhere 
to that Connexion to which the majority shall by regular, official vote decide to ad- 
here, shall be regarded as entitled, agreeably to the Plan of Separation, to hold their 
relation to the other ecclesiastical Connexion—North or South, as the case may be— 
without blame or prejudice of any kind, unless there be grave objections to the moral 
character of such member or members before the date of such formal adherence. 


“ « Resolved, That agreeably to the provisions of the General Conference Plan of 
Separation, and the decisions of the episcopacy with regard to it, any person or per- 
sons, from and after the act of non-concurrence with the majority, as above, cannot 
be entitled to hold membership, or claim any of the rights or privileges of member- 
ship, in this conference. 


‘«« Resolved, That, as a conference, claiming all the rights, powers, and privileges 
of an annual conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, we adhere to the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, South, and that all our proceedings, records, and official 
acts, hereafter, be in the name and style of the Kentucky Annual Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 


““¢FRanxrort, Kentucky, September 10, 1845.’ 


141 


“ The vote on the 4th—the adhering resolution—being taken by ayes and noes, 
stood, ayes 77, noes 6. Four of the six who voted in the negative afterwards ad- 
hered personally to the South; but three persons who did not vote on conference 
adherence—one being absent, and two being probationers—personally adhered to the 
North. Here the result was very different from the predictions of one party and 
the apprehensions of the other. The unanimity of sentiment in the conference, and 
the delightful harmony which prevailed, wielded a mighty influence in promoting 
harmony in the societies and throughout the conference. On a line of border of 
several hundreds of miles, there was found but one small society adhering to the 
North, while in nearly all the others not a murmur or complaint was heard. A paper 
in Kentucky, which had employed all its influence previously against the South, 
from this time acquiesced, and faithfully co-operated with the conference. True, the 
conference had lost two effective men—two young men who might in time have be- 
come useful, and a venerable superannuate, for whose support during life the con- 
ference gave a generous pledge; but they had gained five (and afterwards gained 
three) from the North, all men of experience, weight, and talents. 


“The second border conference to act on the question of adherence was Missouri. 
Here it was claimed that the Northern party would have a conference at any rate ; 
for if they could not secure a majority, they would organize with a minority, transact 
the regular business of the Missouri Conference, and draw the dividend from the 
Book Concern. ‘The better to accomplish their purposes, Bishop Morris was written 
to and invited to attend the conference, with a desire that he would take charge of 
the Northern party. To this invitation he gave the following noble response :— 


“Bishop Morris’s Letter. 


“¢ Buruineton, lows, September 8, 1845. 


*¢ Rey. Wilson S. McMurry—Dear Brother,—Y our letter of the first instant is now 
before me. The resolutions to which you refer did pass in the meeting of the bishops 
at New-York, in July, unanimously. We all believe they are in accordance with the 
Plan of Separation adopted by the General Conference. Whether that Plan was 
wise or foolish, constitutional or unconstitutional, did not become us to say, it being 
our duty, as bishops, to know what the General Conference ordered to be done in a 
certain contingency which has actually transpired, and to carry it out in good faith. 
It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the resolutions were not immediately published, but 
it was not thought necessary by a majority at the time they passed. Still, our admin- 
istration will be conformed to them. Bishop Soule’s notice was doubtless founded 
upon them. 

««¢ As T am the responsible man at Indiana Conference, October 8, it will not be in 
my power to attend Missouri Conference; nor do I think it important to do so. 
Were I there, I could not, with my views of propriety and responsibility, encourage 
subdivision. If a majority of the Missouri Conference resolve to come under the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, that would destroy the identity of the Missouri 
Conference as an intregal part of the Methodist Episcopal Church. As to having two 
Missouri Conferences, each claiming to be the true one, and demanding the dividends 
of the Book Concern, and elaiming the Church property, that is the very thing that 
the General Conference designed to prevent, by adopting the amicable Plan of Separa- 
tion. It is true that the minority preachers have a right, according to the general 
rule in the Plan of Separation, to be recognised still in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, but in order to that they must go to some adjoining conference in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. The border charges may also, by a majority of votes, 
decide which organization they will adhere to, and if reported in regular order to the 
conference from which they wish to be supplied, or to the bishops presiding, they will 
be attended to, on either side of the line of separation. But if any brethren suppose 
the bishops will send preachers from the North to interior charges, South, or to 
minorities of border charges, to produce disruption; or that they will encourage 
minority preachers on either side of the line to organize opposition lines, by establish- 
ing one conference in the bounds of another, they are mis-led. That would be de- 
parting from the plain letter of the rule prescribed by the General Conference, in the 
premises. Editors may teach such nullification and answer for it, if they will; but the 
bishops all understand their duty better than to endorse such principles. I acknowledge 
that, under the practical operation of the Plan of Separation, some hard cases may 


142 


arise ; but the bishops do not make, and have not the power to relieve them, It is 
the fault of the rule, and not of the executive administration of it. In the meantime, 
there is much more bad feeling indulged in respecting the separation, than there is 
necessity for. If the Plan of Separation had been carried out in good faith and 
Christian feeling on both sides, it would scarcely have been felt any more than the 
division of an annual conference. It need not destroy confidence or embarrass the 
work, if the business be managed in the spirit of Christ. I trust the time is not very 
far distant when brethren, North and South, will cease their hostilities, and betake 
themselves to their prayers and other appropriate duties in earnest. Then, and not 
till then, may we expect the Lord to bless us as in former days. 
‘*« <T am, dear brother, Yours respectfully and affectionately, 
“ <'THomas A. Morris.’ 


‘‘ Bishop Soule presided over the conference; and when the question of adherence 
was taken up, the letter of Bishop Morris was read, and, as may be supposed, not 
without effect. 

“The same resolutions substantially adopted by Kentucky Conference, were 
introduced and adopted by this conference, only 14 voting in the negative, including 
absentees.”’ 


The passages in relation to the Holston Conference were read by Mr. Lord, and 
are given in their proper place. The conclusion of the extracts is as follows :— 


“The Tennessee Conference, which met October 22, 1845, though not a border 
conference, adopted the following preamble and resolutions, by a unanimous vote :— 


««<¢ Wuergas, the agitation of the questions of slavery and abolition for the last 
several years, has created great excitement in the Methodist Episcopal Church, de- 
structive of her peace and harmony; and whereas, the General Conference of 1844 
did, by extra-judicial act, virtually suspend the Rev. James O. Andrew, one of the 
bishops of said Church, for an act in which he was fully sustained by the law and 
constitution of the Church, and did thereby render a continuance of the conferences 
in the slaveholding States under the jurisdiction of said General Conference, incon- 
sistent with the interests of our holy religion, and the great purposes of the Christian 
ministry ; and whereas, the said General Conference adopted a plan for a constitu- 
tional and peaceable division of the Methodist Episcopal Church into two separate 
and distinct ecclesiastical jurisdictions ; and whereas, the conferences in the slave- 
holding States did adjudge such separation imperiously necessary, and did appoint 
delegates from their respective bodies to meet in General Convention at Louisville, 
Kentucky, on the first day of May, 1845; and whereas, said convention did proceed 
to declare the separation right, expedient, and necessary for the prosperity of the 
Southern Church, and did proceed, according to the Plan of Separation provided by 
the General Conference of 1844, to adopt measures for the organization of a separate 
and distinct ecclesiastical jurisdiction, known by the name and under the style of 
“The Methodist Episcopal Church, South,”’ based on the doctrines and economy of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, as set forth in the Discipline of said Church ; 
therefore, 1 

«1. Resolved, That we approve the Plan of Separation as reported by the Commit- 
tee of Nine, and adopted by the General Conference of 1844. 

“© «2. That we most cordially approve of the entire proceedings of the Southern 
delegates in the convention at Louisville, in May, 1845, and that we solemnly declare 
our adherence to the said Southern organization. 

‘¢ ¢ 3. That our journals and all our official records be kept in the name and under 
the style of the Tennessee Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South. 

«<4, That we will, at this session, elect delegates to the General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to be held at Petersburg, Va., on the first 
day of May, 1846, according to the ratio of representation (one for every fourteen 
members of the conference) fixed at the Louisville convention. 

«<5. That we, as ever, heartily believe in the doctrines and approve the govern- 
ment of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as set forth in our articles of faith, and 


148 ‘ 


taught m the Discipline, and that we will resist any and every attempt to change any 
cardinal features of Methodism, as handed down to us by “our fathers.” 

“<6. That we highly approve of the course pursued by Bishops Soule and An- 
drew in their administration, since the occurrence of the difficulties in the General 
Conference of 1844, and that we sympathize with them in the unjust and ungenerous 
persecution which has been so bitterly carried on against them in certain portions of 
the North. 

“<7, That we properly appreciate the conservative course pursued by the bench 
of bishops, pending the difficulties which for the last eighteen months have so agi- 
tated the Church, and specially do we commend their purpose of carrying out, so far 
as their administration is concerned, the Plan of Separation adopted by the General 
Conference of 1844. Rosert Patrneg, 

J. B. McFerrin.’” 


The communication from H. B. Bascom, and others, commissioners, to N. Bangs, 
and others, commissioners, dated Cincinnati, Ohio, August 25, 1846, and the reply 
thereto, dated New-York, October 14th, 1846—page 117, second of Proofs—to 
which Mr. Lord referred, are as follows :— 


“The General Conference of 1844, in the provisional Plan of a division of the 
Church property with the South, appointed three commissioners in behalf of the 
Northern branch of the Church to act co-operatively with like commissioners to be 
appointed on the part of the South. Our Southern General Conference of May last 

_appointed commissioners accordingly, who met in Cincinnati in August last, and ad- 
dressed the following communication to the commissioners of the North—personally 
and privately. Rev. J. B. Finley, one of the Northern commissioners, has responded 
through the Western Advocate, and we now deem it proper to let our readers see 
the communication of our commissioners, and Mr. Finley’s reply in connexion. The 
argument of commissioner Finley is sufficiently original. In substance it is, 1. The 
conferences yoted against the change. 2. The commissioners had no means of know- 
ing how the conferences voted. 3. Nobody had any authority to give them the in- 
formation. 4. The South had forfeited all claim to the benefits of such vote if it 
was given. 

««« The undersigned, commissioners appointed by the late General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in accordance with the Plan of Separation 
adopted by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1844, to 
act in concert with the commissioners of said Methodist Episcopal Church, specially 
appointed for the purpose, in estimating the amount of property and funds due to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, according to the Plan of Separation aforesaid, 
and to adjust and settle all matters pertaining to the division of the Church property 
and funds as agreed upon and provided for in said Plan, with full powers at the same 
time to carry into effect the whole arrangement, with regard to said division of pro- 
perty, would respectfully give notice to the Rev. Dr. Bangs, Dr. Peck, and Rev. 
James B. Finley, commissioners, and the Rev. George Lane and C. B. Tippett, book 
agents of the Methodist Episcopal Church, that they are prepared to act m concert 
with them, as the Plan of Separation contemplates and requests, in an amicable at- 
tempt, to settle and adjust all the matters and interests to which the appointment of 
each Board of Commissioners relates—that is to say, all questions involving property 
and funds which may be pending between the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. And as necessary to such a result, in the 
judgment of the commissioners, South, they would respectfully suggest and urge the 
propriety and necessity of a joint meeting of the Board of Commissioners, North and 
South, at a period as early as practicable, that the intention of the Plan of Separa- 
tion, in this respect, may not be defeated by unnecessary delay. It has been the 
aim of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to see 
that all the terms and stipulations of the Plan of Separation be strictly complied with 
on their part, and provision has been accordingly made that the Rev. John Early, 
book agent of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and its appointee to receive 
the property and funds falling due to the South, be duly and properly clothed with 
the legal and corporate powers required by the Plan of Separation. And the under- 
signed commissioners are not able to perceive any valid reason or reasons why the 


144 


negotiation respecting the division of property should not proceed in the hands of the 
joint commissioners without delay, and hence request the joint meeting of the com- 
missioners of the bodies they represent to judge and determine whether the annual 
conferences have authorized the change of the sixth restrictive rule, and as no such 
decision can be had until given by them, it seems important that such decision should 
be given by them as soon as practicable, and we know of no mode of conclusive: ac- 
tion in the case, except by a joint meeting of the commissioners. The Plan of Sepa- 
ration provides for no intermediate action between that of the annual conferences, and 
that to be had by the commissioners, and unless the commissioners North are in pos- 
session of information, clear and satisfactory, that the action of the annual confer- 
ences, in the aggregate vote given by them, is adverse to the recommendation of the 
General Conference, it is obviously made their duty, by the Plan of Separation, to 
meet and decide the question. From all the information in our possession, we see 
no reason why we should not act upon the assumption, that the proposed change in 
the restrictive rule has been authorized. The language of the Discipline is, ‘‘ Upon 
the concurrent recommendation of three-fourths of all the members of the several 
annual conferences, who shall be present and vote upon such recommendations.” 
The language of the Plan of Separation is, ‘‘ Whenever the annual conferences, by 
a vote of three-fourths of all their members voting on the third resolution.” It fol- 
lows hence, that both by the language of the Discipline and that of the Plan of Sepa- 
ration, the question was to be settled by the aggregate vote of those members of the 
several annual conferences, who were present in their annual sessions, when the 
question came up, and actually voted upon it. If any refused or failed to vote, with 
such we have nothing to do—they cannot be regarded as either for or against the 
measure. ‘They declined the right of suffrage by refusing to act, and the determina- 
tion of the question rests with those who were present and voted in accordance with 
the law. In the instance of several annual conferences, the vote was contingent, and 
future events, now to be judged of by the commissioners, were to give an affirmative 
or negative character to their votes. In the instance of two of these at least (and 
we believe it to be equally true of four) it is susceptible of the clearest proof, that, 
by their own official showing, their votes must, beyond all doubt, be counted in the 
affirmative, or not at all; and in either case, and indeed without reference to either, 
taking no account of the conferences which refused to vote, it is believed the consti- 
tutional majority of all the votes given was in favour of the change, and it will, it 
seems to us, devolve upon the commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to 
make the contrary appear before they can in good faith refuse to carry into effect the 
Plan of Separation. ‘To settle this question fairly and honourably, and in accordance 
with the facts in the case, it is believed that a meeting of the commissioners is indis- 
pensable. To this we may add, that the most weighty considerations, both of justice 
and humanity, demand alike that the question be settled as early as possible, as the 
dividends to which we are declared entitled by the Plan of Separation, and which 
that Plan pledges shall be paid to us, until the division of property shall actually 
take place, have already been withheld, and our “ travelling, supernumerary, super- 
annuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children, are literally 
suffering for the want of funds given in trust for their support—funds to which the 
General Conference of 1844 not only declared them entitled, but solemnly stipulated 
to divide with them upon principles of ‘‘ Christian kindness and strictest equity.”’ 

“<The division of property and funds stipulated contemplates no gratuity to the 
South, for it is well known that, in receiving all the Plan of Separation accords to us, 
we are receiving but a part of what the South has contributed to the common fund in 
question. 

«There is another view of this subject, which, in our judgment, should not be 
overlooked by the commissioners. 'The proposed change in the restrictive rule was 
regarded by all who favoured the Plan of Separation in the General Conference of 
1844, merely as means to an end. The end aimed at was an equitable division of 
the Church property, and the more certainly and securely to effect this, within the 
established forms of law and order, the change in question was proposed ; such change, 
however, or the want of it, cannot possibly affect, in any form, the question of right, 
or the true issue in a legal process, should it be found necessary to institute such 

rocess. 
ae The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, intends a most sacred appropriation of 
the funds they may receive exclusively to the purposes specified in the sixth restric- 


145 


tive article ; and not intending to divert them in any way to any other object or 
purpose, the change recommended by the General Conference can only be regarded 
as a matter of form, subordinate, in every high moral and legal sense, to the end had 
in view by the body in the adoption of the Plan of Separation. The object in calling 
attention to this view of the subject is not in any way to supersede the Plan of Sepa- 
ration, but to imsist, as we shall always continue to do, that unless the letter of the 
Plan shall interpose insuperale difficulties, its spirit and intention plainly and impe- 
ratively demand, at the hands of the commissioners, that they carry it into effect, and 
that they cannot fl to d> so without a grave abuse of the trust reposed in them. 
Hence, again.» 2:22 13; a meetmg of the commissioners at an early day, is neces- 
sary to 32% @ this prelimmary question, which it appears to us can be conclusively 
settled in no other way. 

«<Tt certainly cannot be necessary that we remind the commissioners and book 
agents of the Methodist Episcopal Church, that the peace and quiet, not less than 
the character and hopes of the Church, North and South, urgently require that this 
great property question be settled as soon as practicable ; and we are most anxious 
that it should be done amicably and with good feeling, and especially that it may be 
done without an appeal to the civil tribunals of the country ; and the General Confer- 
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, have accordingly instructed their 
commissioners to look to such an issue as the last resort, in view of the adjustment 
aimed at. 

*«¢Tn conclusion, the commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in 
view of the facts and considerations to which they have adverted in this communica- 
tion, would respectfully and urgently call upon Dr. Bangs, as chairman of the com- 
missioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to call a meeting of the joint board 
of commissioners, as hereinbefore indicated, and we cheerfully concede to him the 
right, so far as we are concerned, of fixing the time and place at any period between 
the last of October and the first of March next. Very respectfully, 

« ¢H. B. Bascom, 
A. L. P. Green, 
S. A. Larra. 
“¢ Cincinnati, Ohio, August 25, 1846. 


«“¢P. §.—We would respectfully ask and claim, upon the ground of justice and 
right, that the commissioners and book agents of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
make a direct call, by authority of the General Conference of 1844, upon the secre- 
taries of all the annual conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, for an 
authentic, attested statement of the vote or action of each conference, in relation to 
the change of the sixth restrictive rule ; and the commissioners of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, will do the same within the limits of the Southern organization. 

«¢H. B. Bascom, 
A. L. P. Green, 
mek SA Lara. 2? 


“¢To H. B. Bascom, A. L. P. Green, and S. A. Latta, Commissioners of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, South. 


“¢ Dear BretHren,—We have received your communication dated the 25th of 
August, 1846, requesting us to call a joint meeting of the commissioners appointed 
by the General Conference of 1844 of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the com- 
missioners appointed by the General Conference of 1846 of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, in order to adjust the property question, as provided for in the provi- 
sional Plan of Separation adopted by the General Conference of 1844. 

“¢ Jn reply to this we have to say that, in our judgment, we have no authority to 
act in the premises, as we have never been officially notified that the requisite num- 
ber of votes in the several annual conferences has been given in favour of the altera- 
tion in the sixth restrictive rule in the constitution of the Church, nor have we any 
authority to call on the secretaries of the several annual conferences to give us the 
requisite information as you have suggested. 

‘“«« On these accounts we must respectfully decline to act in the premises, as our 


action would, in our opinion, be null and void. N. Bayes, 
Gero. Peck, 
‘°¢ New-York, October 14, 1846. J. B. Finury.’ ” 


10 


146 


The communication of H. B. Bascom, and others, commissioners, to the bishops 
and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in General Conference assembled, 
dated Pittsburgh, May 11th, 1848 :— 


“ Pittsburgh, May 11, 1848. 


“ To the Bishops and Members of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in General Conference assembled. 


“Rey. anD Dear Breturen,—The undersigned, commissioners and appointee of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, respectfully represent to your body, that 
pursuant to our appointment, and in obedience to specific instructions, we notified 
the commissioners and agents of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of our readiness to 
proceed to the adjustment of the property question, according to the Plan of Separa- 
tion adopted by the General Conference of 1844 ; and we furthermore state, that 
the chairman of the board of commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
informed us they would not act in the case, and referred us to your body for the set- 
tlement of the question as to the division of the property and funds of the Church ; 
and, being furthermore instructed by the General Conference of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, in case of a failure to settle with your commissioners, to attend 
the session of your body in 1848, for the ‘settlement and adjustment of all questions 
involving property and funds, which may be pending between the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ take this method of in- 
forming you of our presence, and of our readiness to attend to the matters committed 
to our trust and agency by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South ; and we desire 
to be informed as to the time and manner in which it may suit your views and con- 
venience to consummate with us the division of the property and the funds of the 
Church, as provided for in the Plan of Separation, adopted with so much unanimity by 
the General Conference of 1844. And for our authority in the premises we respect- 
fully refer you to the accompanying document, marked A. 

“A. L, P. Green, 
C. B. Parsons, Commissioners. 
L. Pierce. 
Jno. Earty, Appointee.” 


To this communication no reply was received. 


THIRD DAY.—Wepnespay, May 21, 1851. 


Mr. Cuoate,—May it please your Honours, I shall have occasion, on behalf of the 
defendants, to make a few additional references ; and I have arranged with Mr. Lord, 
if it may be sanctioned by the Court, that those references may be made, and those 
passages read, after he shall have concluded his argument. 


Juper Nretson,—The Court have no objections. 


Mr. Lorp,—Give me the pages. 


Mr. Cuoater,—I will refer to the ‘ First of the Proofs,” p. 136; the Journals of 
the General Conference of 1848, p. 177, to prove that the number of votes required 
by the Discipline, to change the sixth restrictive rule, had not been given. 

At the request of Mr. Lord, I will read a passage on the subject of the vote of 
the conferences :— 


“The Committee on the State of the Church beg leave further to report in part, 
That they have received of the Commissioners of the Church, South, an account of 
the vote in the Southern conferences in relation to the change of the sixth restrictive 
rule, and from a count of the votes from all the annual conferences, find the follow- 
ing result :— 

“The votes from the conferences at the South stand thus:—For the alteration 
971, and agaist it 3. From the conferences now embraced within the Methodist 


10* 


147 


Episcopal Church, for the alteration, 1,164; against it, 1,067. Whole number for 
the alteration, 2,135; against it, 1,070. The whole number necessary to authorize 
the alteration, 2,404. Subtract from this number, 2,135, the number of votes actually 
cast for the alteration, leaves 269, which is the number of votes wanting to authorize 
the change of the rule. Grorer Peck, Chairman.” 


Mr. Lorp,—The page containing that report was pasted in after the book seems 
to have been published. Will you inform me when it was put there? 


Mr. Cuoatr,—I am unable to state. 


Mr. Lorp,—My learned friends on the other side published that report of the 
“Committee on the State of the Church,” from the Journals of the General Confe- 
rence of 1848. The Court may see that a part of the Journal of 1848 is printed in 
book No. 1, but it does not contain this report of the vote on the change of the sixth 
restrictive article. 


Mr. Cuoatr,—Mr. Lord will find that it refers to it. Iwill read it from page 
136 of the Book of Proofs, No. 1 :— 


“‘ May 18th.—The Committee on the State of the Church presented a report on 
the state of the vote to alter the sixth restrictive rule, to the effect that the number 
of votes required by the Discipline to change said rule had not been given.” 


I shall refer to p.47 of the same book, for the purpose of bringing to the 
notice of the Court which conferences voted against making a grant to the Canada 
conference of a portion of the funds ; to the same book, pp. 131-134, containing the 
address of the bishops to the General Conference of 1844; to the same book, 
pp. 154-165, on what are called infractions by the South of the Plan of Separation. 


Mr. Lorp,—Does Mr. Choate understand, on the subject of these minutes of 
1848, that they are not evidence that the things there stated took place ? 


Mr. Cuoatr,—Certainly ; they are all read under stipulations. The same obser- 
vation will apply to what Mr. Lord read. 


Mr. Lorp,—The transactions of the General Conferences, up to 1844, are intro- 
duced as the joint acts of both parties. After 1844, the minutes and journals of 
each party are introduced, to show what the bodies did and said, but not to have the 
effect of establishing as facts the recitals which they say other people said or did. 
They are merely admitted as authentic papers, to show the action of the bodies. 


Mr. Cxoatt,—I shall refer many times to the ‘‘ History of the Discipline,” but I 
will indicate such passages as I have on my brief, for the information of Mr. Lord. 
They are p. 47, p. 10, p. 251, and pp. 254, and the following. And I am sure Mr. 
Lord will be glad to have me correct one mistake into which he inadvertently fell, 
and which I will enable him to correct for himself. It was said that Bishop Andrew 
was not allowed to take part in the inauguration of bishops in 1844. I shall refer to 
the journals of that conference of 1844, p. 83, to show that the vote upon the bishop’s 
case was on the Ist of June. That is an admitted date. I shall then refer to the 
same journals, p. 139, to show that the inauguration of the bishops took place upon 
the 10th of June; and again to the second of the Proofs, p. 105, to show from a letter 
of Bishop Andrew that he left New-York on the 2d day of June. 


Mr. Reverpy Jounson,—The vote, I believe, was on the Ist. 


Mr. Lorp,—Bishop Andrew, in his letter, says :— 


148 


“Immediately after the passing of the memorable resolution in my case in the late 
General Conference, I left the city of New-York, and spent the next day, which was 
the Sabbath, at Newark, N. J.” 


Mr. Cuoatz,—I am informed that he did not return. I believe that is quite cer- 
tain. 

I shall refer also to pp. 48, 46, and 47 of the first of the Proofs, for the purpose 
of showing that it has been the usage of the General Conference to canvass votes 
given by the annual conferences upon the subject of the restrictive rules—the usage 
of the General Conference holden next subsequently. 


Before commencing his argument, Mr. Lord presented to the court the Points of 
Complainants, as follows :— 


I. The capital arising from the profits of the Book Concern was the result of the 
common labours and services of all the members of all the conferences.—It was not 
a charitable fund merely from donations.—It was a fund of earnings, to make up the 
deficiency of compensation for services rendered, and to provide for those who earned 
it, when they became incapable of labour, and for those who were dependent upon 
them. 


II. It was distributed by the annual conferences, but belonged in actual right to 
the beneficiaries, and as such was, and is, protected by the sixth restrictive rule. 


III. The title of the beneficiaries, at the time immediately before the separation of 
the Church into two parts, was perfect; and it cannot be defeated or forfeited with- 
out a clear proof of breach of condition by the beneficiaries. 


IV. Even if a breach of condition by the annual conferences, by whom the fund 
was to be distributed, could forfeit, there has been no forfeiture, because the General 
Conference of 1844 had the power to consent to an amicable division of the confer- 
ences on grave causes, touching the general efficiency of the Church. 


V. The General Conference of 1844 did, in fact, and on a proper ground, consent 
to such division, to take effect immediately, in the choice of the Southern conferences, 
and without any condition. 


VI. The General Conference of the Church, South, was duly and properly organ- 
ized, according to the Plan of Separation, and is in every respect as properly a Gene- 
ral Conference within its limits, as the General Conference of the Churches North. 


VII. The beneficiaries of the fund in question, therefore, who belonged to the 
Southern conferences, did not, by the new organization, lose any rights, nor were 
they disqualified in any manner from claiming their share of the funds. And such 
claim is appropriately made through the General Conference, South, which succeeds 
to the place of the prior General Conference of the whole Church. 


VII. An account should therefore be ordered of the proportions of the profits of 
the Book Concern, according to the numbers in the minutes of 1844, and at the same 
ratio of the profits since.—Also the capital of the fund should be decreed to be 
divided in the same way, and paid over to the commissioners, South, as new trus- 
tees, or to proper trustees to be appointed by the Court. 


The profits of the past are to be subject to distribution, according to the directions 
of the General Conference, South, whether the fund remain with the present trus- 
tees, or be paid over to new trustees. 


D. D. Lorn, Solicitor of Complainants. 


D. Lorp, 
Reverpy Jonnson, : Of Counsel. 


149 


Mr. Lorp,—May it please your Honours; there is a starting-point in this contro- 
versy, as to which we are all agreed—about which there is no manner of doubt. That is 
this: that immediately prior to the separation, whether it took place in 1844 or 1845, 
all the supernumerary, superannuated, and distressed travelling preachers belonging 
to the Southern conferences, whom we now represent, and their wives, widows, and 
children, in that Connexion, were entitled to an interest in this fund, as well as the 
persons in similar relations, belonging to the Northern conferences. What the 
character of that title was, it is scarcely necessary to inquire. I suppose it was a 
charity-—one of those uses which attach themselves to transitory objects, so to say, 
rather than one of those specific trusts which are held by titles analogous to those 
oflegalestates. But it seems to me, that, for the purpose of starting our reasoning on 
this subject, it may be averred as agreed upon, that as a matter of right, not as a 
matter of mere gift or charity, the supernumerary and superannuated preachers, their 
wives, widows, and children, were entitled to participate in the profits of this Book 
Concern. It may be that this fund was to be distributed by the judgment of the 
annual conferences, and not by any act of the General Conference. As to the Gene- 
ral Conference, on that subject its action was purely ministerial. It merely took the 
account, and enforced the obligation of having the profits of that fund properly placed 
in the hands of the annual conferences for distribution. It had no real discretion on 
that subject. Without an utter and entire abandonment of its primary duty in rela- 
tion to the subject, it had nothing to do but to enforce all the accountability of the 
book-steward to them for the appropriation of the profit of this fund properly ; and it 
superintended the management of it, or at least supervised that superintendence, and 
the fund was obliged to be distributed through the annual conferences. 

Now, as to the duty of the annual conferences, as to their right on that subject. 
They had no interest in this matter. All that they had, was the obligation incum- 
bent upon them, as Christian and faithful men, to see that the profits assigned to each 
annual conference should be distributed according to the intent and purpose of this 
fund. That is, it should be applied to those whom they should ascertain within 
their limits to be supernumerary and superannuated preachers, and travelling preachers 
having their salaries deficient, and to the wives, widows, children, and orphans of 
preachers. Now, you will see that until we get to the actual beneficiaries, we find no 
person having anything but a mere administrative right, a mere agency, and as to selec- 
tion, no discretion. ‘They had not a right to select a meritorious or an unmeritorious 
man, woman, or child. They were bound to ascertain simply certain facts. Is this 
a supernumerary preacher? Is this a superannuated preacher? Is this the wife or 
child of a preacher? Are these the orphans of preachers? Is this a travelling 
preacher unpaid his small salary? There was no discretion in the conferences on 
this subject at all. Their duty was the simple ascertaining of a plain fact—a fact, I 
suppose, always ascertained by the simple declaration of the parties entitled to. re- 
ceive ; because in this Connexion of religious men, of the character of preachers, and 
families of preachers, it is not only a proper assumption in point of law, but a proper 
presumption in point of fact, that the mere statement by these various beneficiaries 
would be taken as decisive on the subject. 

Now, then, we come ultimately to this proposition—and I think it will scarcely be 
denied—that these beneficiaries had directly an interest in this fund, through the me- 
dium of the administration of a charity. Ido not go into the question, whether they 
had a legal right or an equitable title. In this Court it is enough to say, that they had 
that sort of right which cannot be violated without a breach of trust on the part of 
those who administer this fund. If they have no legal estate—no legal, equitable 
estate, so to say ; that is, no such permanent estate in equity as has an analogy to le- 


we, 


150 


gal estates—it only operates to make the obligation on the consciences of the trustees 
more binding and powerful ; and these persons, unprotected by legal securities, and 
by those things which are equitable protections, are more entirely protected im their 
absolute right by the uncovered character of this fund. In other words, it has become 
a right—a valid, perfect, and established debt of conscience and of honour; such a 
debt of conscience and of honour as comes within the administration of relief by courts 
of equity under this doctrine of charities. On that subject I propose to define my 
view of a charity, and then to inquire into the character of this fund, to show that, 
except in the mode of its administration, in law it is in no sense a charity, but a right. 

I suppose that the distinction between a specific trust, and one of those trusts 
which are administrative as charities, is this: a specific trust has individual be- 
neficiaries who are marked out, who take, either for periods of time, or for life, or in suc- 
cession, by way of perpetuity—that is, such a perpetuity as the law allows under 
definite limitations—limitations as to the person, when the right is once vested in 
that person through some legal mode of succession. A charity, I suppose, is a trust 
where the beneficiaries come in by a casual conformity to the descriptions of the 
charity. I mean a casual conformity: that is to say, a man may this year come 
within the description of the poor living in Water-street, for whom a foundation of 
charity is established, and next year he may not. It is that transitory character of 
the beneficiary which I suppose in law defines a charity, and distinguishes it from 
a trust. We are not to suppose that this right of a charity is imperfect because it 
is transitory. I presently intend to go into the character of this, treating it as a 
charity, to show that it is not one of what moralists call ‘imperfect obligations,’’ but 
morally, and in conscience, of the highest and most perfect obligation ; and that the 
only imperfection of the obligation is that which turns you over from the specific 
administration of the law of trust, to the more liberal administration of the law of 
charity. 

Now, supposing, for a moment, that I am right in this character of the title of these 
beneficiaries, and that the women, the children, the supernumeraries, and worn-out 
preachers of the Southern conferences had rights which the Court would regard 
prior to that separation, the question comes up, and that is the great question we 
are discussing, Have they those rights still? Why have they not? Are they not 
Methodists? Have they departed one scruple in doctrine or in discipline? I mean 
the beneficiaries whom I represent; they are not the bishops. Some of them are 
members of conferences, and some of them are not, and the right is equal to them 
all. But why have they not those rights still? Have they ever been tried? The 
gentlemen put it in their answer most distinctly and clearly on the ground that they 
have forfeited the right. They use the term “forfeited” in their answer. They 
say, they “ forfeited” it by secession. Secession from what ? That is the question, 
and the question between us is to be, whether there is, in regard to this fund, any 
such forfeiture as is set up by these gentlemen. And in saying “set up by these 
gentlemen,”’ I ought, perhaps, to explain myself, that I may not be misunderstood. 
By ‘these gentlemen,” Ido not mean these defendants whom I conceive to be not 
volunteers in this matter; they are legal personages, representing, as I suppose I 
may say without giving offence, a rather tumultuous body behind them, a changeable 
body to whom they are accountable, and in regard to whom they must protect them- 
selyes by the most careful conduct. They, however, taking advice on the subject, 
say we, the beneficiaries, have “forfeited” this right. We forfeit it; by which I 
understand, there is some implied condition which we have broken, or some term of 
the grant which renders this charity no longer applicable to us. 

Before going into the inquiry which I propose first to institute, I beg leave to say 


a 


a ee ee ee ee 


151 


one word on the subject of the mode of relief. There will be no difficulty on this 
subject. There need be no apprehension of a difficulty in regard to the subject of 
the dividing of the fund. I suppose it must be divided. I suppose the reasoning 
which we shall adopt on this subject, will call for a division of the fund, of the capi- 
tal itself; but that does not necessarily embarrass our case ; for if these beneficiaries 
for whom I speak are entitled, then the fund may remain in the hands of the agents 
here, an undivided fund, and be administered by them ; and relief would be afforded 
by ordering them to take the minutes of the conferences of the South, in regard to 
the preachers and persons of the South entitled, and turn over the annual dividends 
to them as long as there is a Book Concern yielding profits to be divided, that they 
may thus be distributed. ‘There is, as I conceive, no formal or technical difficulty of 
that sort to be set up. Iam sure, that if the relief to which I conceive beyond all 
question we shall be adjudged to be entitled, if these beneficiaries shall have their 
rights, it will be an advantageous arrangement all round, that the fund should be 
divided, and I presume there will be no difficulty in law in doing it. But that is not 
essential to the relief to which we are entitled under this bill. Nor is it essential 
that the proper persons who are entitled to take the capital of the fund should now 
be before the Court. You have the travelling preachers before you. You have 
the supernumerary and worn-out preachers. You have no wives and children before 
you. But these three descriptions of persons come before this Court, so that this 
Court is bound, in acting, to declare that these persons are prosecuting in behalf of 
themselves and of those who possess the same right with them; so that the question 
is not embarrassed by any formal difficulty of that sort. It comes up clearly, dis- 
tinctly, and fairly, for the judgment and decision of this Court. 

In the consideration of this subject, I propose to inquire into the character of this 
fund. That is the inquiry in the first point which I have laid before your Honours. 
In all these cases of charities, you are aware that there has been a vagueness in the 
character of the trust which is designated for a charitable use. That vagueness 
seems to be almost essential. It has almost always existed in regard to them. 
Sometimes they exist only by implication ; for instance, the case of Lady Hewley’s 
charity, a leading case in modern days, in which the law has probably been finally 
summed up. It was held that her gift of a piece of land, as a foundation for Pro- 
testant Dissenters, in a very vague and general way, should be administered by a 
Court of Equity, and they should inquire into the character of Lady Hewley’s reli- 
gious opinions, in order to ascertain whom she meant by “ Protestant Dissenters.” 
That inquiry into the character of the fund, as growing out of the character of those 
who contributed, of those who formed it, and, if a gift, of those who gave it, has 
always been a material, necessary, and legitimate subject of inquiry in the administra- 
tion of these charities. 

I will give your Honours all the references to cases which bear on the subject. It 
is not a controverted subject, as I believe ; but it may be convenient for the Court to 
have the references, and I will give them all together. The first one to which I refer, 
is that of Field vs. Field, 9 Wendell, p. 400, decided in October, 1832. That de- 
cided the question at law. It went upon a mere question of actual organization. It 
was not a question of equity as to the proper administration according to the intent 
of the donor, but a question of the mere actual succession of one organization to an- 
other. This subject was very fully canvassed in this State, in the case of the Lu- 
theran Church, (Miller vs. Gable, 2 Denio’s Reports, 518, in the Court of Appeals,) 
decided finally in December, 1845. It had been previously discussed by the Chan- 
cellor, (10 Paige, 646,) and prior to that by Vice Chancellor Hoffman in his reports, 
to which I have no reference ; his opinion, however, went so much on the thealo- 


152 


gical parts of the question, that it foes not enlighten us as much as the other. There 
the whole subject was canvassed. That was a religious charity, and the question 
arose in a double shape. One was the question of a departure from religious doc- 
trines ; the other, a question of departure from adherence to the religious governing 
body. In all these cases it was held that the adherence should be in point of doc- 
trine, or a Court of Equity would reform or correct the abuse of the property ; and 
when it was plain, and evident, and clear, that the charity was founded in connexion 
with a religious government, they would always establish it in a Court of Equity; 
but they held that in that case it must be very clear. ‘They also held, that if in the 
origin of the charity, it was not so subject, but that those who administered the cha- 
rity afterwards by agreement and voluntary connexion did subject it, that it was 
not misapplied, although the body afterwards withdrew from that ecclesiastical con- 
nexion, and it then stood only on the question of conformity of doctrines. However, 
your Honours will no doubt find great instruction upon this subject from that case. 

The other cases bearing on the subject I will give without comment. In 1814, the 
case of Davis vs. Jenkins, 3d Vesey and Beame’s, 152. You will find in this case 
avery minute and careful inquiry, free from all collateral inquiries, into the character 
and understanding of the founders of the charity. I cite it to show that this inquiry 
into the character of the original foundation of the charity, the nature of the contribu- 
tions, and the character of the men who contributed to it, goes to enlighten the Court 
in ascertaining the character of the charity in order to execute it. The case of the 
Attorney General vs. Pearson, 3 Merivale, 352. It also appears in 7 Simon’s Reports, 
290, republished in 10 English Chancery Reports, 61. That merely upholds the 
principle that the doctrines of the founder of the charity, it being a religious one, 
should be enforced, and that a majority of the trustees, a temporal body, should not 
be permitted to use the property in deviation from those doctrines. Again: in the 
case of Leslie vs. Burney, 2 Russell, 114, also reported in 3 English Chancery Re- 
ports, 46, which was the case of a meeting-house in London of the Scotch Presby- 
terian Church. There was an election by the elders and communicants, excluding 
the seat-holders. ‘That was contested, on the ground that these seat-holders had all 
contributed ; but it was held that as that Church was founded by Scotch Presbyterians 
this was right, and such a mode should be upheld. This shows that in going into 
this inquiry, the character of the fund, the character of the donors constituting it, and 
all that contribute to a fund which grows out of its origin, should be looked at and 
regarded in the decision upon it. The case of the Attorney General vs. Shore, 7 
Simon’s, 290, note, was a similar case to that of the Attorney General and Pierson. 
Another case, not however bearing very directly on the question, but to which I will 
give a reference, is Milligan vs. Mitchell, 3 Milne and Craige, 77. 

We contend, in regard to the character of this fund, that the capital arising from 
the profits of the Book Concern was the result of the common labours and services, 
of all the members of all the conferences. It was not a charitable fund merely from 
donations. It was not a charity of that sort in which the beneficiary comes, without 
any previous right, to beg alms. It was not a gift. It was a charity which grew, 
as we shall attempt to show, out of actual, laborious, self-denying, beneficial services» 
just as much as any Savings’ Bank or Life Insurance. At the same time, from the 
transitory character of the beneficiaries of the fund, it became in law one of those 
things which must be administered as a charity. We say it was a fund of earnings 
to make up the deficiency of compensation for services rendered, and to provide for 
those who earned it, when they became incapable of labour, and for those who were 
dependent on them. 

Now let us look to the character of this fund ; and this, in my humble judgment, 


153 


is a very material inquiry in this case; for the question of “ forfeiting,” as it is put 
in the answer, is a very different thing from entitling yourself to alms. It is a ques- 
tion here distinctly put as a question of forfeiture. A man comes to me for alms ; 
it is a matter between me and my conscience whether I will give him alms—he has 
noright. But if aservant, who has rendered me services during the prime of his 
days, upon the understanding that I should take care of him in his old age, and I 
gave him no bond for it, and he has become old and decrepid, the Court will see how 
different is the application he makes to me, from a man with whom I have had no 
connexion at all. You cannot but see that in this case there is in the outset a na- 
tural equity—there is an appeal to the very foundation out of which the charity itself 
springs. There is in the very nature of the subject, a light to guide us in the con- 
sideration of this matter. 

How did this fund arise? Your Honours, in examining Emory’s History, will find 
that it had its origin with the preachers of the Methodist Church. They undertook 
to see to the supplying of books, and they were to see to payment for the books. 
Upon our book, No. 1, page 17, we find this extract from the “ History :”’— 


‘“‘ Ezekiel Cooper is appointed the superintendent of the Book Concern,” (Ezekiel 
Cooper was in fact the founder of the profitable Book Concern,) ‘ who shall have 
authority to regulate the publications, and all other parts of the business, according 
to the state of the finances from time to time. It shall be his duty to inform the an- 
nual conferences if any of the preachers or private members of the society neglect to 
make due payment.” 


There you perceive the preachers and private members subject to ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction. They are to see that these books realize money. 


‘“‘ He may publish any books or tracts which, at any time, may be approved of, or 
recommended by, the majority of an annual conference, provided such books or tracts 
be also approved of by the book committee, which shall be appointed by the Philadel- 
phia Annual Conference.” 

It was therefore the taste of the annual conferences which was to determine what 
books were to be printed. Ezekiel Cooper had not the right of a common bookseller 
to print what he pleased ; that was a right of the preachers, meeting in annual con- 
ferences, which were composed of all the preachers, and were not delegated bodies. 
In 1800, the General Conference was composed of all the members of all the annual 
conferences. ‘Their taste in the selection, their reading, their examination of sub- 
jects, was that which led to the adoption of the books which should receive the im- 
primatur which gave them a currency, and made their publication profitable. 


“‘ Let his accounts and books be examined by the Philadelphia Conference at the 
time of the sitting of the said conference. 

“Tt shall be the duty of every presiding elder, where no book-steward is appointed, 
to see that his district be fully supplied with books.” 


So your Honours will see that it did not merely mean that this community, which 
perhaps lacked intelligence and information more at that day than at the present, 
should be left without having the benefits which the press distributes over every com- 
munity where it is known. There you have one of the elders determining that 
matter ; but they did not leave it there. 

‘‘ He is to order such books as are wanted, and to give directions to whose care 


the same are to be sent ; and he is to take the oversight of all our books sent into 
his district, and to account with the superintendent for the same.”’ 


“Our books.” Whose books? Why, the books of these preachers ; their books 
asa denomination; those which they sanctioned, which they selected and caused to be 
distributed, and in fact persuaded to be purchased. Again :— 


154 


“He is to have the books distributed among the several circuits in his district, 
and is to keep an account with each preacher who receives or sells the books ; and 
is to receive the money, and to forward it to the superintendent.” 


Every preacher, therefore, was an agent in the diffusion of the literature of the 
Church ; a wise, very wise plan—wise for the people, and wise for the government 
of the Church: but it was the act of the preachers; it was the labour of the 
preachers that made this the great Book Concern, which it ever came to be. The 
preachers, we have already seen, selected the books; the presiding elders had it in 
charge to see that they were supplied to the preachers in their several circuits ; and 
they were to sell them. Again: 


‘“‘ When a presiding elder is removed, he is to make a full settlement for all the 
books sold or remaining in his district; and is also to make a transfer to his succes- 
sor of all the books and accounts left with the preachers in the district, the amount 
of which shall go to his credit, and pass to the debit of his successor.” 


Thus it will be seen, that this was a business most strictly and directly connected 
with the ministry of this Church, calling not only for activity and labour on their 
part, but pecuniary accountability on the part of every preacher in every Methodist 
circuit. 

“Tt shall be the duty of every preacher, who has the charge of a circuit, to see 
that his circuit be duly supplied with books, and to take charge of all the books which 


are sent to him, from time to time, or which may be in his circuit ; and he is to ac- 
count with the presiding elder for the same.”’ 


That does not mean that he is merely to bring the books, that his people may pur- 
chase them, although that would be a meritorious participancy in this fund; but it 
meant, ‘Sir, in your preaching press upon your people the necessity of learning, as 
well by the press as by the living voice, the doctrines, practices, morals, and virtues 
of this religious faith which you preach to them.” Again :— 


‘“‘ When a preacher leaves his circuit, he must settle with the presiding elder for 
all the books he has disposed of ; he is also to make out an inventory of all that are 
remaining unsold, which shall be collected at one place ; the amount of which shall 
go to his credit, and be transferred to his successor, who is to take charge of the 
same. If the preacher who has charge of the circuit be negligent in dispersing the 
books, the presiding elder shall commit the charge of the books to another.”’ 


What more distinct agency could be established? What more distinct services 
called for? What stronger and more conscientious accountability upon a mortal 
man than is by this system established upon all the preachers ? 


“‘The superintendent of the book business may, from time to time, supply the 
preachers with books in those circuits which are adjacent or convenient to Philadel- 
phia, and settle for them with the same; in such cases the regulations respecting the 
presiding elders are not to apply.” 


That is, in the districts adjacent to Philadelphia, you need not go through the for- 
mality of receiving the books from the presiding elder, but the superintendent may 
supply you directly. Then again :-— 


«‘ Every annual conference shall appoint a committee or committees, to examine 
the accounts of the presiding elders, preachers, and book-stewards, in their respective 
districts or circuits. Every presiding elder, minister, and preacher, shall do every- 
thing in their power to recover all debts due to the Concern, and also all the books 
belonging to the Concern, which may remain in the hands of any person within their 
districts or circuits. If any preacher or member be indebted to the Book Concem, 
and refuse to make payment, or to come to a just settlement, let him be dealt with 
for a breach of trust, and such effectual measures be adopted for the recovery of 


4 155 


such debts, as shall, be agreeable to the direction of the annual conferences re- 
spectively. 

“There shall be no drafts made upon the Book Concern till its debts are dis- 
charged, and a sufficient capital provided for carrying on the business ; after which, 
the profits arising from the books shall be regularly paid to the Chartered Fund, and 
be applied, with the annual income of the funded stock, to the support of the distress- 
ed travelling preachers and their families, the widows and orphans of preachers,’’ &c. 

There was the foundation of this fund. And I ask if ever a fund exhibited, under 
the name of a charity, so much of the aspect of the accumulations of a partnership ; 
and if there ever was a fund which provided so equitably and justly a retiring pen- 
sion for these men, who, for a trifling yearly salary, not enough to pay for a fashion- 
able dinner, served year after year in the wilderness, and spent their best days in 
toil? Have they not aright, above the ordinary beggar of alms, to a fund growing 
out of their own exertions? We are to look at this matter in all its aspects. When 
we look at the administration of this fund, to see how it is to be dealt with, your 
Honours must not lose sight of the character and the services of the persons by 
whom it was established. You see that the character of this fund is thus impressed 
upon it by its establishment ; and nothing, it seems to me, canbe clearer than that it 
was intended to create a fund, so far as was practicable, for the first great object of 
enlightening this Methodist community as to religious truth, as to their morals, and 
as to their habits of life; and that the second great object was, that when this insti- 
tution should be carried out, the preachers themselves might have some little stimu- 
lus for activity, and that they should be entitled to look for an absolute support from 
this fund for the wants of old age, and the wants of their dependents, and the wants 
of their poor and suffering brethren. This was first given to the ‘“‘ Chartered Fund.” 
That “ Chartered Fund” it is not necessary to notice further than to say, that it was 
an incorporation for the mere purpose that is expressed—the support of distressed — 
travelling preachers and their families. 

The next thing in the history of this fund is in the Conference of 1804—the last 
General Conference before they became delegated bodies. There was then this 
variation, that instead of being paid to the Chartered Fund, it was to be administered 
through the annual conferences. The Conference of 1804 provided that, 

“ The profits arising from the Book Concern, after a sufficient capital to carry on 
the business is retained, shall be regularly applied to the support of the distressed 
travelling preachers and their families, the widows and orphans of preachers, &c. 
The general book-steward shall every year send forward to each annual conference 
an account of the dividend which the several annual conferences may draw that 
year; and each conference may draw for their proportionate part, on any person who 
has book-money in hand, and the drafts, with the receipt of the conference thereon, 
shall be sent to the general book-steward, and be placed to the credit of the person 
who paid the same. But each annual conference is authorized, at all events, to draw 
on the general book-steward for $100.” 

This continues to be the establishment of this fund up to the present time. There 
has been no change as to this. It is yet paid to the annual conferences, and by them 
distributed. 

Before I make any further remarks on this, I beg to call your Honours’ attention 
to the allowance made to the preachers of this communion during all this period. I 
say, ‘‘during all this period ;” for though I quote the amount from the Discipline of 
1840, you will see that it never could have been much less. On page 29 of Book 
No. 1, I read,— 


“* Of the allowances to the ministers and preachers, and to their wives, widows, and 
children. 
«The annual allowance of the married travelling, supernumerary and superannu- 
ated preachers, and the bishops, shall be $200, and their travelling expenses.” 


156 


Two hundred dollars is the entire allowance to travelling preachers, if they are 
married ; it was the entire amount allowed these gentlemen who were travelling in 
this wilderness, and disseminating Christianity. And if they were bishops, they had 
the same allowance. Then we have another class of persons,— 


«The annual allowance of the unmarried travelling, supernumerary, and superan- 
nuated preachers, and bishops, shall be $100, and their travelling expenses. 

“ Each child of a travelling preacher or bishop shall be allowed $16 annually, to 
the age of seven years, and $24 annually from the age of seven to fourteen years ; 
and those preachers whose wives are dead shall be allowed for each child annually a 
sw sufficient to pay the board of such child or children during the above term of 
years: Nevertheless, this rule shall not apply to the children of preachers whose 
families are provided for by other means in their circuits respectively. 

«The annual allowance of the widows of travelling, superannuated, worn-out, and 
supernumerary preachers, and the bishops, shall be $100. 

«“'The orphans of travelling, supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preach- 
ers, and the bishops, shall be allowed by the annual conferences the same sums re- 
spectively which are allowed to the children of living preachers. And on the death 
of a preacher leaving a child or children without so much of worldly goods as should 
be necessary to his, her, or their support, the annual conference of which he was a 
member shall raise, In such manner as may be deemed best, a yearly sum for the sub- 
sistence and education of such orphan child or children, until he, she, or they, shall 
have arrived at fourteen years of age. The amount of which yearly sum shall be 
fixed by a committee of the conference at each session in advance.” 


We should have printed in Book No. 1, an extract from the Discipline of 1840, to 
show how the fund of the preachers is made up. I find on pp. 170 and 171 of the 
Discipline of 1840,— 

“The more effectually to raise the amount necessary to meet the abovementioned 


allowance, let there be made weekly class collections in all our societies, where it is 
practicable.” 


Now this was a very peculiar charitable fund, and the question about all these 
funds of charity is, how far is the imtention of the founders established by their lan- 


guage, or by their circumstances taken in illustration of the language and the charac- | 


ter of the fund, at its original establishment, in connexion with the uses to which it 
is designed to be applied. I, therefore, remark, concluding upon the point of the 
peculiarities of this fund, it was a profit from the services of the travelling preachers, 
as an earned profit of common labour. This book fund was nothing but a profit from 
this bookselling, and this bookselling was conducted by the preachers. The books 
were selected and supplied by the preachers. The preachers were accountable for 
the debts in the first instance. If they were not careful, if they were guilty of any 
neglect of duty, they stood responsible to their community for a breach of trust.. 
During the time that they were rendering this service what were they getting? 
Two hundred dollars a year, if married, to support themselves and their wives. Be- 
sides this they were allowed “ travelling expenses,” not for the expenses when the 
travelling was terminated, but for the actual travelling expenses. If they had to go 
from New-York to Boston the expenses on the journey were paid, but those were all 
that were included under “‘ travelling expenses.”’ Upon this system this community 
lived, and flourished, and prospered. Now, was there anything for these men to de- 
pend on? ‘To what could they look in futurity—for themselves in old age, for their 
wives when they became too old to labour, for their children in their infancy, and for 
their widows? What was that which would permit a man, with any regard to his 
obligations to his family, to go into this missionary service, except that he thought 
he might be provided for by a miracle? It was this, substantially this, fund; for 





157 


excepting the Chartered Fund growing out of donations, and that not a very large 
one, this fund was the only hope of infancy and old age, and the only means of the 
discharge of all that parental duty, and that duty of economy which every man 
owes to himself in making some provision for the future, and not presumptuously 
tempting Providence to supply him by a miracle. That is the character of this 
fund. 

When you come to dispose of it, your Honours surely are not going to take it like 
a fund for the propagation of certain doctrines where the slightest deviation from the 
doctrine will forfeit it. If it were a question of that kind, Iam sure no Court could 
ever sit in judgment upon this subject which would not struggle in every way possi- 
ble, if a struggle were necessary, which would not consider it the plainest of its 
duties, to see that there should be no forfeiture of such a fund without the gravest, 
and clearest, and most perfectly-established breach of a substantial obligation; no 
breach of some trifling thing, no breach of a thing merely technical in its character 
would be permitted to forfeit that which was the common patrimony of the old, be- 
reaved, and fatherless. These classes of persons all stand together. There is no 
provision applicable to the preachers, superannuated and supernumerary, different 
from that which applies to the widows and orphans. And if the conference is out 
of the pale of this Methodist Church, so that it has no right to the fund, the orphans 
and widows go with them. ‘That is the doctrine of our friends on the other side. 
It comes to this; and I therefore submit to your Honours, when you come to examine 
this subject, that upon this question of forfeiture my learned friends must make the 
sun shine brightly. It must be a noon-day sun which will enable you to see any for- 
feiture by which the rights of such beneficiaries to the fund thus established shall 
ever be thought of. It was in no respect a mere gratuitous and charitable fund 
growing out of donations to maintain a particular faith or mode of ecclesiastical 
government. It was a retiring pension, or savings’ bank, for the supernumerary and 
worn-out preachers, and their widows and orphans. I do not deny that a connexion 
with Methodism, that good standing ina Methodist Episcopal Church, was probably 
an implied condition in the establishment of this fund. I say an implied condition, 
because it is not expressed; it is implied from the fact that the provision in the Dis- 
cipline of the Methodist Church speaks of these superannuated and worn-out 
preachers ; but it is merely implied, and the extent and degree to which it is to be 
implied is very much in the judgment of the Court taking into view the nature and 
character of the fund. 

Let us ask ourselves, if any of these men, when they were at their labours, should 
have had it put to them: ‘“ Well, my friend, by-and-by you will become feeble and 
decrepit, and perhaps you may go to a Baptist or a Presbyterian Church, do you 
mean, now, that if you do that, you shall have no share in this fund!’ perhaps, if 
he was a very zealous man, he would say, “‘ Yes, I mean that.”’ But I think men in 
general would say, ‘‘ Well, that is a thing which I did not think of ; I do not know: it 
would be very hard, in my old age, to visit my infirmity in that way.” My learned 
friends have, on this subject, it seems to me, a heavy task to make out, that the most 
strict, and perfect, and literal conformity to everything is necessary before this fund 
can be partaken of by these beneficiaries. Certainly, the exact conformity could not 
apply to widows and children. The establishment of this fund had for its primary 
object, (as the most of these charitable funds have,) the spreading of religious faith 
and the supplying of religious instruction. But it was not established to preach 
Methodism after a dividend had accrued. It was retroactive. Its benefits were 
thrown backward ; it was for past services ; the benefits lay before them to be sure, 
but the services out of which they became entitled to them were behind, and the 


158 


contribution every year was not for the services of the preacher who preached this 
year, but for the services last year. 

Let us look a little now into the application of this question as it arises. Here 
are the widows, and the old and worn-out preachers of the Methodist Church of the 
South of the present day. This fund began to be established in 1800—fifty years 
ago. It seems most probable that a vast majority of all those who can now partici- 
pate in this fund are the very persons who have become worn-out ; that is to say, 
taking the whole Connexion of the North and the South, the supernumerary and su- 
perannuated preachers, who would now partake of the fund, are the men who were at 
work from 1800 to 1840, or 1845, and who became superannuated and worn-out. So 
you will see what a sacred trust it is, what a sacred charity, if it is to be called 
a charity ; with what rights those come whom we represent, when they come on the 
ground that here has been a divided dominion—when the question has been put, 


‘¢____. Under what Prince, Bezonian? Speak, or die,” 


and they are charged to have made an unfortunate answer. I am sure, when you 
come to examine this subject, you cannot examine it as stoics. You cannot do it 
but as men, Christian men, men used to the instruction of the pulpit, and who cannot 
but admire the self-denial of those who have gone about disseminating Christianity 
among the poor and ignorant of this country, and for such a paltry consideration in 
money. 

I submit that there was in it the nature of a common property of earnings, not of 
gifts, and it can only be called a charity by reason of the technical manner in which 
it is to be administered. 

I come now to another feature of this plan. That which is relied upon to forfeit it 
from our beneficiaries, is the act of the annual conferences in the South. Those 
conferences, our learned friends say, have done that which made them seceders. 
Well, what had they to do with this fund? What right had they? The supernu- 
merary and worn-out preachers belonged, nominally, to those conferences ; they had 
a right to be present, but I suppose, in point of fact, that those who were too old 
to preach would not very extensively mingle in those warlike acts to which our 
friends, in the report of 1848, on the state of the Church, which I understand is to be 
referred to, allude. Are the wives, and the widows, and the children, to be affected 
by the action of the annual conferences? If the forfeiture is to be enforced accord- 
mg to the doctrine of our learned friends, then it attaches not to the absence of the 
Methodistical character, because any one of these beneficiaries may be as orthodox 
as can be, may be perfect as a Methodist, yet if the annual conference has gone off 
it is forfeited. Is an annual conference to forfeit it when it has no more right to the 
fund, than has the clerk of a bank to the money which passes through his hands? It is 
the act of that body which is relied upon as the forfeiting act. I shall be glad to 
hear the argument which shall establish any right of forfeiture by the action of a mere 
agent. At any rate, it must be established by something exceedingly clear, because 
it certainly is a thing the most revolting in the world, not only to every legal, but to 
every common idea of justice. A man can hardly begin to apprehend what justice is, 
and not see that such a thing as this would be most grossly unjust. It would be equal 
to the laws of Draco, excepting that instead of dealing in blood it dealt in starvation. 

One other proposition on the subject of this fund to show how sacredly it was re- 
garded by this Church itself. I say it was distributed by the annual conferences, but 
belonged in actual right to the beneficiaries, and, as such, was and is protected by 
the sixth restrictive rule. This is the second point which I have submitted to your 
Honours. A word now as to the general character of these rules, which I shall 





159 


aftérwards more particularly examine. They are on pp. 28 and 29 of Book No. 1. 
The General Conference, prior to the establishment of these restrictive rules, con- 
sisted of all the Methodist preachers, who, instead of meeting in annual conferences, 
met in the General Conference. Their power was unlimited. But when they came 
to act by delegations, the power, as we contend, remained equally unlimited, except 
as it was restricted by the restrictive articles. When they came to put these rules in, 
the Court will notice in what connexion they put in this provision for retiring preachers 
and their families. They provide in the sixth rule the following :-— 


“They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book Concern, nor of the Char- 
tered Fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of the travelling, supernume- 
rary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children.” 


This is put as a restriction, and it is the only money restriction in these articles. 
As to all matters of finance and of money, the General Conference can do every- 
thing except in this single particular. They put this restriction alongside of the 
articles of religion. They put it alongside of their episcopacy. They put it along- 
side of the general rules of their United Societies which form their Church. They 
put it alongside of the trial of preachers and members. They invested it, indeed, 
with the most sacred sanctions. They do not say anything about being in connexion 
with the society, or continuing in it. All that can be said on the subject is, that 
it is implied, from the rule being a rule of this Church, that it applies to persons who 
hold the relations of preachers to the Church. And in what relation of preachers to 
the Church? Preachers who are to be deprived of everything when any change or 
difficulty may occur in the working of so extensive a system as this, whereby a man 
may remain a most perfect Methodist, and yet change his allegiance? For instance, 
if instead of our taking Texas, Texas had taken Mississippi, and it had been a con- 
quered country, and conferences had been forbidden, so that the Church could not be 
held in that country, would it be held that, in such a case as that, entirely unforeseen, 
and not expressly provided for, a Methodist preacher who still lived in the conquered 
country, with his wife and children, was cut off from a participation in this fund, 
because Methodism in his country had become extinct 2 

When your Honours come to carry out this charity, you will be glad to be guided 
through ali its difficulties, if they are difficulties, by the consideration of the great 
equity, the great humanity, and the great justice which pertains to the original 
institution of this fund. This Church, in this most simple way, provides this fund 
“for the benefit of the travelling, supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out 
preachers, their wives, widows, and children.” That is the trust. It is not con- 
nected, except impliedly, with the ecclesiastical connexion; and the extent to which 
it is to be thus connected, is a matter which will be afterwards discussed. But 
what I mean to say, and rely upon as having established, I am sure in your hearts, 
and I trust in your judgments, is, that that which is to defeat this claim, and that 
which is, in the language of the answer, to forfeit it, is not to be any technical 
departure from one or another mode of government. It must apply to the sub- 
stantial elements and quality of Methodists, as men of faith and practice, conforming 
to the faith and practice, to the substantial elements of the Methodist faith rather than 
to the mere elements of a particular shape of a hierarchy. In this aspect of the case 
—in the aspect in which the gentlemen on the other side claim it as a forfeiture—it 
is emphatically an Indian war. It does not spare the old man. It does not spare 
the wife, nor the widow, nor the orphan. It scalps every one. But it is an Indian 
warfare, not in their intentions. I am very sure that the gentlemen, even the most 
heated of the partisans in this warfare, would never carry this principle out if they 


160 


had seen the extent to which the doctrine necessarily led. I absolve them, from’all 
my heart, from any such thought. Nothing in the history of this society shows that 
they would ever have thought of or done such a thing ; and if the necessary conse- 
quence is, that itis to be an Indian warfare, nothing more need be said to estab- 
lish the fact, that it was not originally intended. For I venture to say, it is not in- 
tended by the most heated men of the present day, that that should be the operation 
of what they claim to be the system of forfeiture which they would apply to it. 

One other word upon this part of the case. _In illustrating a little, in anticipation 
of an argument which I shall presently lay before you, I would now explain that 
they do not set up any deviation of faith on our part, or any deviation of discipline. 
All they set up is, that we are not in harmony with their General Conference, and 
that they are the real, true General Conference. Now I suppose no Methodist will 
deny, that it is essential that the preachers should be in connexion with an annual 
conference as with a General Conference. I find in the Methodist Book of Disci- 
pline that the annual conference is as necessary a body as the General Conference ; 
nay, four times as essential. It is the primary body, and the power of the General 
Conference is only the powers of the annual conferences assembled together. What 
shall we say of all the Southern country, where, according to the learned gentlemen 
on the other side, there is not a single man, woman, or child, in connexion with an 
annual conference as they put it ; because they say these annual conferences are not 
annual conferences. Certainly, it is a most extinguishing doctrine. Suppose we 
had every heart and desire to continue with the annual conferences ; suppose, instead 
of there being an almost unanimous vote of the Southern conferences in favour of 
division, there had been close majorities, then the minorities of every conference 
overruled by the majorities, according to my learned friends, must form a seceding 
conference, or they would have no right to the fund. Now, can it be that that was 
in the contemplation of those who established this fund, or shall it be in the contem~ 
plation of those who take it up in a new and unforeseen case, and undertake to say 
what would have been the decision of those who established it, if they had foreseen 
the case? Can it be that those are to be excluded who are in connexion with the annual 


conferences? Here are annual conferences adopting every principle of Methodism ; , 


the primary governing bodies of the Methodist Church. These people are in firm, and 
in close connexion with them, but merely differmg from a certain number of those 
who represent the other conferences in a General Conference. Can you conceive 
of a slighter ground of forfeiture than that? That is what is set up in the answer. 
They do not say that we make ourselves unworthy recipients of this charity ; it is, 
that admitting us to have rights, we forfeit them, and that the forfeiture is by reason of 
our remaining in connexion with the primary governing bodies, submitting to the Disci- 
pline, adopting the doctrines, and conforming to the practices and usages in every 
respect, but that our conferences think it necessary, for the harmonious action of the 
Methodist Church, for its action as a Christian body giving light in the Southern 
country, that they should act separately ; and that that act of independence is a 
schism, a secession, and such a departure from faith and doctrine, as to strip even 
the widows and children of a provision made for them by their husbands and 
fathers in their better days. I cannot conceive that such a doctrine can be 
established. 

This being the character of the fund, I now propose to inquire into the grounds on 
which the defence say it has been forfeited. The first ground they set up is, that 
the General Conference had no power to sanction a division. They say, that sup- 
posing the General Conference had undertaken in the most explicit way to sanction a 
separation, they never had any power to do it. Inthe second place, they say that this 





161 


grant of the power of separation as actually assented to, was contingent upon the 
experiment being made in the Southern Churches of whether they could be ruined 
first and repaired afterwards, or whether they should prevent the ruin and go on with- 
out it. They say: ‘“ You should have gone on and experimented, to see whether you 
would have been ruined; because you should not go to this until you were nearly 
ruined.’ That is the second ground of forfeiture—not stated, to be sure, in that form, 
but such is the substance of it. They say: ‘ You should have tried an experiment ; 
and not having experimented, you have not taken the proper means of carrying out 
your grant, supposing that the General Conference had a right to make it.” The 
third ground is, that we violated the borders as laid down in that Plan of Separation. 
And the other ground is, that it was all conditioned on the passage, by the annual 
conferences, by the requisite vote, of an alteration of the sixth restrictive article. 
In other words, it comes to one of these two propositions: First, they say the Gene- 
ral Conference could not grant it; and secondly, if they could and did grant it, 
it was conditional, and the condition has not occurred or has been broken. I pro- 
pose to examine these several questions in detail. I have discussed my third and 
fourth points—that the title of the beneficiaries at the time immediately before the 
separation of the Church into two parts was perfect, and it cannot be defeated or 
forfeited without a clear proof of breach of condition by the beneficiaries. And even 
if a breach of condition by the annual conferences, by whom the fund was to be 
distributed, could forfeit, there has been no forfeiture ; because the General Confer- 
ence of 1844 had the power to consent to an amicable division of the conferences on 
grave causes touching the general efficiency of the Church. 

The question presented here is entirely uncovered, so far as my inquiries have ex- 
tended, by any precedent ; nor have I seen any principle laid down by any writer on 
the subject which covers it, except in one case in Kentucky, to which reference will 
hereafter be made. The question that I shall first discuss, must be disembarrassed 
of all those questions of whether they did it on condition or not, or whether the con- 
dition has been complied with or not. JI first wish to discuss the question of whe- 
ther, suppose they had in express terms enacted, ‘Be it resolved, by this General 
Conference, that the slaveholding conferences (naming them) and the Northern 
conferences (naming them) shall hereafter hold their sessions separate, and they 
shall be the General Conferences of the Methodist Church called for in the Disci- 
pline, and applying to the extent of country in which these annual conferences have 
jurisdiction,” it would have been binding. ‘That is the first plain’ proposition into 
which this subject is to be distributed, and which must be examined. 

I remark, in the first place, that this case is unprecedented, because here is no 
dispute at all as to doctrines. It is not set up in the answer that we are heterodox 
by the shade of a hair. It is not set up that we have violated even the least rule 
about dress. There is no sort of pretence of any deviation in doctrine, nor anything 
in morals, in practice, or in Methodist usages. We have adopted their Book of Dis- 
cipline, word for word, except where alterations are called for by the mere change 
of the meeting of the General Conference, our meeting being of thirteen annual confer- 
ences ; their Discipline has nothing about that. In every other case that has occurred 
in this branch of the law, there has been a claim that there was a departure in doc- 
trines, and the Courts have always said, that although at law we only look to the 
regularity of the organization and succession, yet in equity, let the organization be 
ever so regular, let the succession be ever so regular, if there be a deviation in doc- 
trine it is a misapplication of the trust, if it be held for the diffusion of that doctrine. 
But here the case is disembarrassed of any such consideration. There is no deviation 
in morals or doctrines ; in rites, ceremonies, or usages. They have classes; so 


li 


162 


have we. They have circuits; so have we. Theyhave elders; sohave we. They 
haye travelling preachers who travel all around; so have we. They have bishops ; 
so have we. They elect their bishops; so do we. We institute bishops by the 
same form of service as they do. In everything we are alike. They are governed 
by a General Conference ; so are we. Our General Conference have the same 
powers as theirs,—they have no more power than they had before the separation. 

You now see how peculiar this case is. It is a mere question as to the right of 
these two bodies, while one, to divide and govern themselves by a duality instead 
of aunity. If that is a thing which forfeits every right depending on this matter, it 
would not come up upon one side of this question merely. Both sides would 
forfeit ; that is to say, the Northern Methodist Church would have no more right 
to this book fund than the Southern Methodist Church. So long as there was a 
Northern and Southern Methodist who stood opposed to this division, they two would 
form a whole Church, and all other Northern and Southern men would stand ex- 
cluded ; because the doctrine which I am now considering, and which my friends 
must either abandon, or adopt in the strongest manner, is, that the Conference had 
not the power to consent to a division of it into two bodies. If it had not, is the 
party who gave the consent any better off than the party who took it? Was it 
‘one body who gave the consent and another who took it? No, it was the same body 
who gave it, and the two parts of the body who took it; and the fund would stand 
without an owner, unless it should be some stray, worn-out preacher, who had not 
voice enough to give any dissent, but who had sense enough to employ counsel and 
claim the whole fund. If the General Conference had not the power, that would 
be the result. 

Again: here is no dispute as to the supreme ecclesiastical body to which sub- 
mission is due. In all these disputes which have heretofore arisen in this country, 
it has been as to adherence to this General Assembly or that General Assembly 
which claims to be the only one, and by its mode of succession establishes the right 
to be the only one. This is not aclaim of that sort. It is a claim of this sort: 
the parties consent that the general body should act in two parts, and each part be 
governed by its own general body. But, according to the argument of our friends, 
there is no General Conference, and there could be none after the act of 1844; there 
‘could be none in the sense of the Discipline of the Methodist Church. The Con- 
ference had consented that the Southern conferences should no longer be represented 
in that General Conference. I am now considering the question apart from the 
conditions, supposing the consent to be aclear one. We are now on the question 
of the power. They having consented that the Southern conferences should not 
send their delegates to the General Conference, and the Northern conferences should 
send up their delegates to the Northern Conference at a particular place, I submit 
that, if their doctrine is true, the Methodist Church is literally cut in two and dead— 
there is no General Conference. If they deny the power of the General Conference 
to grant a separation, then there never was a General Conference after that of 1844, 
and there is an end of this question; because the general body, to whom the subor- 
‘dinate bodies are supposed to owe allegiance, being destroyed—the king being dead, 
‘there is no treason to that king—there is no government. It is another question, 
and it is a question whichI think our learned friends will ‘say does not arise here, 
because I am sure they cannot meet it. 

Again: I submit that this is not the case of a hostile separation; and notwith- 
‘standing the warmth exhibited in the Convention of 1844, they took the wise part, 
of which Scripture gives a most eminent illustration, when Abraham and Lot sepa- 
rated, that, as they could not agree when together, they might agree when separated. 


11 





163 


They adopted that principle; and although it had been preceded by heats, although 
the acts which were done were, to the manifest observation of every observer, such 
as would establish separation, not lead to it—such as to render the co-operation of the 
two parts of the body any longer perfectly hopeless—they parted in good-will. They 
shook hands when they separated; they spoke in terms of affection on both sides. 
I am very glad to be corrected by my learned friend, as to an error into which I had 
fallen, in the Conference of 1844 not having excluded Bishop Andrew from the 
consecration of the other bishops. If you will look at the debates and closing acts 
of that Conference, you will find that the idea of both parties was, that they should 
no longer be tied together in this struggling relation; but should be permitted to go 
off untramelled, each with their own particular views, to do good in their own way, 
and among their own people. This feeling harmonized the termination of that Con- 
ference. This, therefore, is not the case of a hostile separation ; and in that respect 
I am happy to say, that whatever took place afterwards through mischiefs, which I 
think grew out of the press, the Conference when it separated, when it agreed to 
this division, did it harmoniously, did it kindly, and in the expectation of a kind 
communion afterwards. : 

I submit that this General Conference had the power to consent, from the very 
constitution of it. Originally there was only one conference, and that was an- 
nual. When that came to be divided into several annual conferences, they yet all 
met together ; and in 1792, I think it was, for the first time they determined to meet 
every four years. But all the preachers who formed the annual conferences, met in 
General Conference. I think it will not be denied that in 1792, or in 1800, or in 
1804, this body had a right to divide itself. They were all there. To say they had 
not a right to divide, would be to say that men whose connexion grew, in fact, out of 
meeting together, had no right to meet otherwise. I do not suppose it can be con- 
tended, with any force of argument, that the General Conference before they came 
to be a delegated body, could not have divided themselves, for grave reasons of con- 
venience, into two. For instance: if there had not been the present great facilities 
for travelling, they might have established a conference on the eastern, and another 
on the western side of the mountains. The mere difficulty of communication would 
have been a sufficient reason, and would have justified it ; and every Court, and every 
man of sense would have said that it was a proper, prudent, and reasonable thing 
that the power of the Church, in such a case, should be exercised in a double instead 
of a single form, or a divided instead of a single meeting. 

In 1808 arose a new system; it was of acting by delegations, and by peculiar 
delegations. It was acting rather by committees than by delegations. Instead of hay- 
ing fourteen clergymen come to a General Conference, one of the fourteen was selected 
to carry the power of them all; and I submit to your Honours, as a proposition which I 
am sure you will not fail to adopt, that the Conference of 1808, and its successors, had all 
the powers of the previous General Conferences, except so far as they were limited by 
the restrictive articles. In vain will you look into this Methodist system prior to 1808, 
for any restrictions on the General Conference of that Church. If that body had 
chosen to become Socinian; if it had chosen to adopt the Presbyterian or Baptist 
forms, either of government or of doctrine, it was in its power to do it. There was 
no limit. ‘They represented the Church; they were the Church. The Church dis- 
persed its light from the preachers. The laity were not known in the governing 
body. Matters of doctrine, discipline, and everything were in the governing body. 
If that was so up to 1808, what was that body after that period? It was the same 
General Conference. Before, it is probable that preachers from the more distant 
parts could not attend as well as those who lived near the place where the sessions 


164 


were held, and that those who lived nearer would be more fully present than those 
more distant ; and yet its powers were the same. What then did this change of the 
system in 1808 effect? Why, it left the body with the same powers it had before, 
only that it prevented that inequality, and put specific limitations upon it. I submit 
that the Conference of 1808, and all which succeeded it, were invested with the full 
powers of the ecclesiastical government of the Methodist Episcopal Church ; and this 
is unlike any other Church, because its historian tells us, as I read the other day, that 
every General Conference provides a Book of Discipline, which contained the arti- 
cles of religion, and the form of the hierarchy of the Church; and all its rites and 
ceremonies, and financial and other arrangements, were superseded by the new Book 
of Discipline, sanctioned by the new Conference, and published by it. ‘This is put 
in very plain and intelligible language by Mr. Emory in his History, on the second 
page of our first book of the Proofs :— 


“Tn our civil governments, the statutes are scattered through the several volumes 
of laws which have been published from time to time, and therefore these are all pre- 
served. But in the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Discipline, as revised at each 
General Conference, being in itself complete, supplants all that had gone before it, 
and the previous editions are cast aside as of no further use. ‘Thus it has continued, 
until now nearly sixty years have elapsed since the organization of the Church, and 
the Discipline has undergone about twenty distinct revisions.” 


Before I go into some other considerations, growing out of these restrictive articles, 
which I think most fully establish the plenitude of the power, I propose to consider 
historically one or two events, to show that my proposition is correct. 

The whole American Methodist Episcopal body was an amicable separation from 
that in England, and this separation never impeached the quality of any Methodist 
preachers. Our civil institutions began in revolution. Our civil government was a 
schism of the most grievous kind ; one of those schisms that warranted an Indian war- 
fare, that warranted execution, hanging, bills of attainder, everything that is known 
in revolutionary warfare. But the religious separation of the Methodists was the 
most kindly, peaceful, and regular separation, by the consent of the body of which it 
was a part, so that from that day to the present they have been in such harmony, 
that the preachers of one part of it are received, as I understand, without examination 

‘as preachers in the other. Looking at the origin of this separation, we find that those 
who separated were treated as being in perfectly good standing with their brethren, 
not only in England, but all over the world. I read from page 3 of our book :— 


“The close of the year 1784 constituted a new and most important epoch in 
American Methodism. 'The independence of the United States having been con- 
firmed by the peace of 1783, the authority of England over them, both civil and eccle- 
siastical, came to an end. ‘The connexion with the Church of England being thus 
providentially dissolved, Mr. Wesley, who had always resisted a separation from it, 
took measures, on the application of the American societies, to organize them into a 
Church. In explanation of his views and wishes, he addressed to the brethren in 
America the following letter.” 


I will not read the whole of the letter, but a paragraph from it on page 5 :— 


‘As our American brethren are now totally disentangled, both from the state and 
from the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle them again either with the one or 
the other. ‘They are now at full liberty simply to follow the Scriptures’and the 
primitive Church. And we judge it best that they should stand fast in that liberty 
wherewith God has so strangely made them free.” 


That letter was written Sept. 10, 1784. It probably reached this country in the 
course of the next month. I read on page 5 of our book the following :— 





165 


“To carry into effect the proposed organization, a General Conference of preach- 
ers was called, to meet in Baltimore, at Christmas, 1784. Sixty out of the eighty- 
three preachers then in the travelling connexion, attended at the appointed time. 
‘ At this Conference,’ say the annual minutes for 1785, ‘it was unanimously agreed 
that the circumstances made it expedient for us to become a separate body, under 
the denomination of “The Methodist Episcopal Church.” ’ And again they say: 
‘We formed ourselves into an independent Church; and following the counsel of Mr. 
John Wesley, who recommended the episcopal mode of Church government, we 
thought it best to become an episcopal Church, making the episcopal office elective, 
and the elected superintendent or bishop amenable to the body of ministers and 
preachers.’ They adopted a form of Discipline for the government of the Church. 
This was substantially the same with the Large Minutes, the principal alterations 
being only such as were necessary to adapt it to the state of things in America.” 


These “ Large Minutes” were Mr. Wesley’s minutes. I will read from the Dis- 
cipline of this Conference, (page 6 :)— 


“ Ques. 2. What can be done in order to the future union of Methodists? 

“ Ans. During the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his 
sons in the Gospel, ready, in matters belonging to Church government, to obey his 
commands. And we do engage, after his death, to do everything that we judge 
consistent with the cause of religion in America, and the political interests of these 
States, to preserve and promote our union with the Methodists in Europe.” 


This was after Mr. Wesley’s letter, and after the dissolution of their connexion 
with the European Methodists. Again, (page 7 :)— 


“ Ques. 3. As the ecclesiastical as well as civil affairs of these United States have 
passed through a very considerable change by the Revolution, what plan of Church 
government shall we hereafter pursue? 

“ Ans. We will form ourselves into an episcopal Church, under the direction of 
superintendents, elders, deacons, and helpers, according to the forms of ordination 
annexed to our Liturgy, and the form of Discipline set forth in these minutes.” 


The Discipline they adopted was the same with that of the English Methodists. 
It was the Large Minutes of Wesley. The organization was the same, excepting 
that Mr. Wesley was not here, and this body pledged themselves to conform during 
his lifetime to his commands, and after his death to what should be consistent with 
the cause of religion, and the preservation and promotion of union with the English 
Methodists. 

Again : upon this subject I would refer to what took place in 1789, which will be 
found on pp. 10 and 11, which I will not read, but which, I trust, will receive from 
your Honours the attention it deserves. I shall read now from the Discipline of 
1840. J believe it was not read in the course of the reading of the Proofs, but I 
think it material on this subject—page 36, chap. i., sec. 8. 


On Receiving Preachers from the Wesleyan Connexion and other Denominations. 


“‘ Ques. 1. In what manner shall we receive those ministers who may come to us 
from the Wesleyan connexion in Europe or Canada? 

“« Ans. If they come to us properly accredited from either the British, Irish, or 
Canada Conference, they may be received according to such credentials, provided 
they give satisfaction to an annual conference of their willingness to conform to our 
Church government and usages. 

‘« Ques. 2. How shall we receive those ministers who may offer to unite with us 
from other Christian Churches? 

« Ans. Those ministers of other evangelical Churches, who may desire to unite 
with our Church, whether as local or itinerant, may be received according to our 
usages, on condition of their taking upon them our ordination vows, without the re- 
imposition of hands, giving satisfaction to an annual conference of their being in or- 


166 


ders, and of their agreement with us in doctrine, discipline, government, and usages ; 
provided the conference is also satisfied with their gifts, grace, and usefulness.” 


After the separation from England, and after the separation of the Canada Metho- 
dists, when their ministers came to the Methodist body in this country they were to 
be received, they were not to be re-ordained, there was to be no re-imposition of 
hands, they were simply to declare their conformity, or their willingness to conform, 
to the Church government in this country. But when ministers come from any other 
denomination, although there is no theological re-ordination, yet there is a most com- 
plete act of re-institution into the ministry as into the ministry of a different evan- 
gelical Church, not holding the orders of other denominations theologically invalid, 
but holding that this was a necessary change into another Church calling for all those 
things which indicate a change of allegiance. 

On the subject of the Methodist Church in this country separating from the Metho- 
dists of England, peacefully and without blame, and remaining unimpeachable 
Methodists in every sense, the address of the British Conference and the answer to it, 
from the minutes of 1840, (pp. 64 and 65 of Book No. L,) are very material. The 
whole character of this address and the reply to it, is that of parts of the same body 
addressing each other. ‘The reception of a letter so plain in the character of its re- 
flections, and the kind spirit of the reply toit made by the Conference of 1840, show 
that these two bodies after the separation did not treat each other as schismatical, 
as being on the one side seceders and on the other the genuine body. And I cannot 
but call your Honours’ attention to the passage with which the American Methodist 
Conference closes its reply to the British letter—a sort of argumentum ad hominem— 
in which they adopt the very language of the British Conference in 1833. They 
quote the language of the English Methodist Missionary Society in their instructions 
to missionaries, as follows :— 


‘‘ As in the colonies in which you are called to labour, a great proportion of the 
inhabitants are in a state of slavery, the committee most strongly call to your remem- 
brance what was so fully stated to you when you were accepted as a missionary to 
the West Indies, that your only business is to promote the moral and religious im- ' 
provement of the slaves to whom you may have access, without in the least degree, 
in public or private, interfering with their civil condition.” 


I now submit that the separation of the Canada Conference from the American 
body was one of those separations which were not schisms nor schismatical. In the 
short examination which I shall give this subject, and yet which I intend to be a 
rather full one, the Court will please to understand that I do not pretend to say that 
some of the gentlemen who took part in that did not consider that, before a conse- 
quence of that separation, viz. a division of the money, could take place, it was ne- 
cessary to change the sixth restrictive article. Some of them did certainly so con- 
sider, and they agreed to submit to the annual conferences the question, whether the 
money should be divided. They decided that it should not be done. Then the 
General Conference almost unanimously voted, that instead of dividing the money or 
the capital, they would reduce the price of books furnished to the Canada Methodists 
so that no profit should be made on them for a certain period of years. If they were 
thus selling the books to seceders, to strangers, they were committing a palpable 
breach of trust. They gave to the Canada Conference seven per cent., for sixteen 
years, of the profits of the Methodist books which they sold to them. According to 
the position of our friends on the other side, they had no more right to give this much 
away to them than they had to give it to establish a billiard-room. 

Let us look into this case. My object in referring to it is to show that in that 


167 


separation the Methodist conferences had no idea that there was a schism created, 
whatever else may have been their notions. I speak respectfully when I say ‘‘no- 
tions.” By notions, I mean opinions very hastily formed, not very well considered, 
and as I believe, (after reading the documents,) not adopted by the sounder men 
among them. ‘They acted upon a principle of concession, and finally leaped over a 
difficulty which they could not bridge. They did wisely; but what I wish to show 
is, that in that matter there was no idea entertained that there was any secession or 
schism. The history of this is to be found from page 32 to page 52 of our book of 
Proofs. 

Your Honours will see that this began by a petition in 1828. The Canada Metho- 
dists—a portion of the Church held in the highest esteem and respect—put it plainly 
on the ground that it was their idea that the General Conference could consent to a 
separation; and in their petition they gave such reasons as I think would satisfy 
every one as to the power of the General Conference and the propriety of its exer- 
cise. The petition begins, (page 32 :)— 


“Rev. Fathers and Brethren,—The Canada Conference having, after mature de- 
liberation, deemed a separation expedient, most humbly pray that they may be set 
off a separate and independent Church in Canada.” 


If there had been any idea of secession and schism it was only for the Canada 
Methodists to avow it. They needed no petition, no consent to secede. They 
might on the ground of the necessity of the case, of their distance from the place of 
meeting, have seceded and justified themselves, standing the charge of schism. 
This they did not do; but they went at once, as a body of Methodists of character and 
respectability, and declared to the Methodist General Conference that the latter had 
the power to sanction a separation: and they asked for a separation. They then 
gave the reasons for separation : first, political relations and political feelings ; next, 
the local circumstances of their societies ; then, the religious privileges which it is 
probable they would obtain from their government if they were separated ; then, their 
wanting a bishop who should act exclusively in that Province. This was presented 
in view of the fact, that in the war of 1812, still in fresh recollection, the people of 
the conferences were found in arms against each other, and it was impossible for a 
bishop from the United States to exercise his functions in Canada. They then refer 
to the general wish of the people in Canada for a separation. These are the things 
which made a palpable necessity for separation. 

They would not certainly ask for a separation if they did not suppose the Confer- 
ence had the power to grant it. Now look at the manner of the petition. They say, 
(pp. 33, 34 :)— 


‘Your petitioners, likewise, most humbly and earnestly solicit that the General 
Conference may also be pleased, 

“Ist. To maintain with the British Conference, as far as practicable, the main 
principles of the late arrangements with regard to Canada. 

«2d. That the General Conference will appoint such an individual for a superin- 
tendent of our societies in Canada, as may be nominated by the delegates of the 
Canada Conference. 

‘3d. That the Church in Canada may be embraced in the general and friendly 
principle recognised by the two Connexions,—‘ The Wesleyan Methodists are the 
same in every part of the world.’ ”’ 


That was the legend which was the “ E Pluribus Unum’’ upon the flag of this 
society: ‘‘The Wesleyan Methodists are the same in every part of the world.” 
After the original separation from the Methodists of England, it was adopted ; when 
the Canada separation took place, they presented that as the great maxim. It is as 


168 


much as to say: ‘‘ Whether we are separated by distinct organization or not, it is the 
same body ; it is no schism, no want of orthodoxy in any respect. ‘The petition 


add, (p. 34,)— 


“Ath. That the General Conference will, together with an independent establish- 
ment, be pleased to grant your petitioners a portion of the Book Concern, of the 
Chartered Fund, and a portion of the fund of the Missionary Society.” 


They did not think there would be any difficulty in having their part of the fund 
granted, because, I venture to say, they considered that the least of all difficulties 
would be a money difficulty. And yet it proved the greatest, and one which, more 
than any other act of the Methodist body, exhibits it in a light somewhat equivocal 
in regard to the duties of its own discipline, if it is as they seem to suppose it be. 
Then the committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. Bangs, to which this matter was 
referred in their report, (pp. 34, 35,) say :— 


“The committee are unanimously of the opinion, that, however peculiar may be 
the situation of our brethren in Canada, and however much we may sympathize with 
them in their present state of perplexity, this General Conference cannot consistently 
grant them a separate Church establishment, according to the prayer of the peti- 
tioners. The committee, therefore, recommend to the General Conference the 
adoption of the following resolutions :— 

©]. That, masmuch as the several annual conferences have not recommended it 
to the General Conference, it is unconstitutional, and also, under the circumstances, 
inexpedient, to grant the prayer of the petitioners for a separate Church establishment 
in Upper Canada. 

“2. That an affectionate circular address be prepared by this General Conference, 
stating the reasons why their request cannot be granted, and expressing the unabated 
attachment of this Conference for their brethren in Canada, and their earnest desire 
for their continuance in the fellowship of the Church. All which is respectfully 
submitted. (Signed) N. Banes, Chairman. 

“ Pittsburgh, May 12, 1828.” 


It was the language of the report that it was unconstitutional to grant the prayer 
of the petitioners, inasmuch as the annual conferences had not recommended it. 
Your Honours will see, however, that the separation was granted by the almost un- 
animous vote of this body, without the slightest hesitation and without the reeommen- 
dation of the annual conferences. On pp. 35 and 36 I find :— 


“May 17.—Rev. John Ryerson, one of the delegates from the Canada Conference, 
offered the following substitute for the report under consideration :— 

««¢ Whereas the Canada Annual Conference, situated in the Province of Upper 
Canada, under a foreign government, have, in their memorial, presented to this Con- 
ference the disabilities under which they labour, in consequence of their union with 
a foreign ecclesiastical government, and setting forth their desire to be set off as a 
separate Church establishment ; and whereas this General Conference disclaims all 
right to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction under such circumstances except by mu- 
tual agreement ; 


“¢ 1. Resolved, therefore, by the delegates of the annual conferences in General 
Conference assembled, that the compact existing between the Canada Annual Con- 
ference and the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, be, and hereby is, 
dissolved by mutual consent. 

«¢2. That our superintendents or superintendent be, and hereby are, respectfully 
advised and requested to ordain such person as may be elected by the Canada Con- 
ference as superintendent for the Canada Connexion. 

«3. That we do hereby recommend to our brethren in Canada to adopt the form 
of government of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States with such 
modifications as their particular relations shall render necessary. 

“¢4. That we do hereby express to our Canada brethren our sincere desire that 
the most friendly feeling may exist between them and the Connexion of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church in the United States. 


i i a a 


169 


“<5, That the claims of the Canada Conference on our Book Concern and Char- 
tered Fund, and any other claims that they may suppose they justly have, shall be 
left open for future negotiations, and adjusted between the two Connexions. 

“¢G, R. Jones, 

“<¢ May 17. Moses Crum.’ 

“The question on the first resolution was decided in the affirmative—104 for, and 
43 against it.” 


Thus the Court will see that the first resolution, which purported to dissolve this 
connexion between the conferences, had the voice of 104 for it, to 43 against it. 


Mr. Cxoatr,—The gentleman must remember that that vote was afterwards re- 
considered. 


Mr. Lorp,—I will give the history of that. The only effect of the reconsideration 
was to authorize a separation without this first resolution. But what is the meaning 
of this first vote? It is that one hundred and four thought this was constitutional, 
and forty-three thought that it was not. Is that nothing? Suppose they did recon- 
sider it. How was the question presented? There was a report from Dr. Bangs, that 
as this was without the recommendation of the annual conferences it was unconstitu- 
tional, and a Canada gentleman, apparently a stranger, proposes a substitute that it is 
constitutional, and one hundred and four vote in favour of the substitute, and forty- 
three doubt the constitutional power. Now, how idle is it to talk about reconsidera- 
tion upon such a subject as this! There might be a reconsideration on the subject of 
expediency, but upon the question of constitutional right, let gentlemen explain it to 
me in consistency with the fairness and maturity of the men who gave that vote, how 
can it be that one hundred and four deliberately considered it both constitutional and 
expedient, and then reconsidered it, unless that reconsideration was on the question 
of expediency and not of constitutionality? When they gave the first vote they 
must have considered it both constitutional and expedient, and when they recon- 
sided it, it might have been in view of a better and more harmonious plan, or it might 
have been in view of a simple question of expediency. But how can one hundred and 
four have voted for it, if they did not suppose it was constitutional? Then the record 
says: ‘The other four resolutions were, on motion, referred to a special committee, 
to consist of five members.” Those four resolutions were those carrying out the Plan 
of Separation. That committee reported other resolutions which formed the substitute 
eventually adopted in place of that first resolution. The first resolution reported by 
this committee was :— 

“‘ Tf the Annual Conference in Upper Canada, at its ensuing session, or any suc- 
ceeding session previously to the next General Conference, shall definitely determine 
on this course, and elect a general superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in that Province, this General Conference do hereby authorize any one or more of 
the general superintendents of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, 
with the assistance of two or more elders, to ordain such general superintendent for 
the said Church in Upper Canada, provided always that nothing herein contained be 
contrary to, or inconsistent with, the laws existing in the said Province; and pro- 
vided that no such general superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
Upper Canada, or any of his successors in office, shall at any time exercise any ec- 
clesiastical jurisdiction whatever in any part of the United States, or of the Territories 
thereof; and provided also that this article shall be expressly ratified and agreed 
to by the said Canada Annual Conference, before any such ordination shall take place.” 


The second and third resolutions reported by that committee were consequences of 
this. Then we find (pp. 38, 39) :— 


“ Wepnespay Mornine, May 21.—It was, on motion, Resolved, That the subject 
of the petition from the Canada Conference be resumed ; whereupon the resolutions, 


170 


as reported by the last committee appointed on that subject, were read. It was then 
resolved that the subject shall now be considered and acted on. 

‘“‘ Samuel H. Thompson moved, and it was seconded, that the resolutions, as re- 
ported by the committee, be adopted. The question being taken, it was decided in 
the affirmative—108 voting in favour of adoption, and 22 against it.” 


These resolutions, as has already been seen, provided for the manner of the organi- 
zation of an independent Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada. It was providing 
completely for the case contemplated by the first resolution of Mr. Ryerson. Then 
(page 29) :— 


“May 23.—J. Emory moved, and it was seconded, that the resolution first adopted 
on the subject of the separation of the Canada Conference from the Connexion in the 
United States, be reconsidered, and the motion prevailed. It was then resolved, on 
motion, that this resolution be rescinded.” 


This resolution first adopted they had superseded by the passage of the resolutions 
reported by the committee. This second series of resolutions, which were adopted, 
provided for the complete establishment, at its own choice, of a Methodist Episcopal 
Church in Canada, with its bishop, and its bishop not to have power in the United 
States, but to be limited to Canada. They then repealed the first resolution, which 
they had previously passed, but which had become perfectly unnecessary, because it 
spoke of dissolving a compact, when here provision was made for the establishment 
of an entire and separate Church. 

From the reading of these documents, in regard to the Canada case, it does seem 
to me very clear that the General Conference of 1828, not only by its vote of 104 to 
43 asserted the power of consenting, upon such reasons as were there presented, to 
the establishment of separate Churches, but also absolutely carried it out by the 
resolutions reported by Dr. Fisk, as the chairman of this committee, which were 
adopted by the Conference. And when this report was adopted, the less efficient 
provision before adopted was rescinded as useless. ‘This would seem to be the 
natural supposition, also, because on this complete plan the vote was 108 to 22, and 
it was adopted by a much larger majority than the other prior resolution had been. 

Then came up the difficulty about the Book Concern; and it is somewhat un- 
pleasant to see that there should be so much more difficulty about dividing funds than 
dividing members. There has always certainly been a bone of contention about that 
which did not exist in regard to theological difficulties. It is a difficulty which I confess 
is surprising to me, because everything about this body, and everything about its 
institutions, exhibits such an adoption of honourable poverty, such self-denial in regard 
to money and money affairs ; and it is one of the strange things which this investiga- 
tion has brought me to notice, that with a body so entirely honourable as this, there 
should be this poor business of making difficulties as to dividing funds which did not 
exist with regard to dividing bodies. As will be seen on pp. 40, 41, a report of a 
committee came in on this subject. It will be noticed that after this organization of 
the new Church, there remained several new things to be done in connexion with it, 
and one was as to the supply of books and the apportionment of the book-fund. The 
provision for the organization of a new Church in Canada did not settle the 
question in relation to the book-fund. In 1832 this subject came up, and in what 
manner? Not on a “petition” from the Canada Conference. In 1828 the question 
first arose on a “ petition,’”’ but now in 1832 we find it come up ina very different style 
on “An Address from the Delegates of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada.” 
Here you have a newly-organized Church, perfectly independent of this body, ad- 
dressing it—addressing it not as schismatics, not by way of recantation, not by way 





171 


of asking forgiveness, not by way of any deprecation, but claiming rights. Here was 
a Church which had been organized by the very consent of this body, now presenting 
itself in its new organization, and in its new independence, not with a petition, but 
with an address—not with a supplication, but with an ambassador.—Page 39. 


“May 4, 1832.—An address from the delegates of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
of Canada was presented and read; and, on motion, that part of it relating to the 
Book Concern was referred to the committee on the Book Concern, and that part 
of it relating to missions, referred to the committee on missions. 

“May 18.—On motion, the report of the committee on the Book Concern, respect- 
ing the Canada business, was called up.” 


A debate was then had upon it. It was again debated on the 19th, 21st, and 23d 
of May. This address, as has been seen, related to two subjects—the Book Con- 
cern and missionary concerns. The report here referred to, related to the Book 
Concern. It will be found on page 41. It was :— 


“The committee to whom was referred the business of the negotiation with the 
delegates of the Canada Conference on the subject of our Book Concern, having had 
the same under their serious consideration, are of opinion that, in consideration of 
their former relation to us, and the friendly feeling and brotherly affection which now 
exist between the two Connexions, as well as in view of the liberal and efficient sup- 
port they have formerly given to the Concern, an apportionment of the property of 
the Concern ought to be made to them.” 


These gentlemen, after consenting to the establishment of a new Church, declare 
that it is an equitable principle that an apportionment of the property ought to be 
made, particularly on account of the former relations which had subsisted between 
them. Here we have a principle of equity declared, which must govern, and ought 
to govern, in regard to this Book Concern, in every case. ‘This Conference of 1832 
declared as a principle of equity, that in consideration of the past—and it was a much 
better past in the Southern Church towards this great body, than the past of that poor 
Canadian Church, whose benefit to the general body was for the most part to allow 
them to exercise charity—an apportionment of the property ought to be made. 

I ask nothing of your Honours in this case, but to incorporate that phrase into 
your decree; that you will only declare, with regard to us, as the Conference of 
1832 declared in regard to Canada—that in consideration of our former connexion 
with this body, and the friendly feelmg and brotherly affection which now exist be- 
tween the two Connexions, as well as in view of the liberal and efficient support 
which we formerly gave to the Concern, it is equitable an apportionment of the pro- 
perty of the Concern ought to be made to us. Now, what prevented this being done 
in the Canada case? I will continue to read the report :— 


“ But as constitutional difficulties are believed to be in the way of such an appro- 
priation by this Conference, because they have not been instructed on this subject by 
their constituents, according to the proviso at the end of the restrictive regulations, 
they beg leave to submit, for the adoption of the Conference, the following reso- 
lutions.” 


These resolutions were to submit the matter of apportionment to the annual con- 
ferences. But what is the meaning of this report? Why, the fair and honest view 
is, that “‘ we consider in justice this thing ought to be done ; this fund is not our fund, 
exclusive of the preachers in the Canada Conference, and ought to be divided; but we 
regret that we have not the power to do it,—that there are constitutional difficulties to 
such a thing being done ; but, inasmuch as it ought to be done, we shall refer the question 
to the annual conferences.” So far as the act of the General Conference is concerned, 
it is decisive of the question of equity, and not decisive of the question of power over 


172 


the fund, as they left that to the annual conferences, and the latter would not agree 
to it. Our learned friends on the other side intend to refer to the fact that the 
Southern conferences at that time did not agree to this division. That does not 
establish the law. Undoubtedly, the view of the General Conference, the great 
legislative body of this Church, when it was enlightened by discussion, was, that 
though there was doubt as to the constitutional power, yet there was a plain equity 
which ought to direct a part of it to the support of the Canada preachers. ‘That is 
the way in which this thing stands. So far as our friends ask to have your Honours 
consider the weight of the authority of the Southern conferences, they are very welcome 
to it. I conceive that these questions of constitutional power over funds belong 
more properly to a court of justice. 

The manner in which the vote was taken on this subject is worthy of great con- 
sideration in this connexion. In the first place, the Conference sanctioned the forma- 
tion of a separate Church in Canada, and they treated this separate Church as not 
schismatical. Secondly, they conceive there are difficulties in regard to the restric- 
tive article. Whether these difficulties were such as would have precluded any par- 
ticular preacher from coming and claiming, after that separation, a right to this fund, 
was not before them: the right to divide the fund itself they think ought to be known, 
and they therefore thought it was safe to submit it to the annual conferences; and 
the conferences voted that they would not consent to this. ‘Then what took place? 
I would call attention, without reading them, to pp. 48, 44, and 45, to show the 
character in which the two bodies held each other after this separation. The vote 
came in, whereby the conferences decided not to consent to this Book Concern being 
divided. The Conference of 1836 then took up the subject, and they appointed a 
committee. That committee examined the votes, and found that the necessary num- 
ber of votes had not been given by the annual conferences ; and then the committee 
go on to say (page 49) :-— 


‘“‘ But inasmuch as the General Conference have ever claimed and exercised the 
right to regulate the discount at which our books may be sold to wholesale pur- 
chasers, and with a view to an amicable and final arrangement of all the difficulties 
which have existed on this subject, and especially with a sincere desire to go as far 
as Justice to the Methodist Episcopal Church will authorize, to encourage and per- 
petuate the friendly and fraternal feelings which should ever exist between the 
different members of the great Methodist family, the committee submit to the consid- 
eration, and for the adoption of the General Conference, the following arrangement, 
mutually agreed to by the delegates from Canada and the book agents, and which we 
are assured will be satisfactory to our Canadian brethren, if sanctioned by this Con- 
ference. 

“‘ Whereas the Canada Conference, now in connexion with the Wesleyan Metho- 
dists of Great Britam, was formerly united to, and formed part of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church ; and whereas the union, which by mutual consent then subsisted, 


was dissolved at the earnest and repeated solicitations of the ministers and members 
of the Church in Canada,’”’ &c. 


Was this the language of a Church towards schismatics? Then comes the agree- 
ment.—Pp. 50, 51. 


“The agents of the Methodist Book Concern shall furnish to the book-steward 
of the Canada Conference any of the books which may be issued from its press at the 
following rates, subject to the conditions and provisions hereinafter named :— 

“The general alphabetical catalogue books, whether in sheets or bound, shall be 
sold at forty per cent. discount from the retail prices, as long as the present discount 
of one-third shall be made to wholesale purchasers ; but should the discount be 
hereafter changed to one-fourth, then, in that case, the books sold to the book- 
steward of the Canada Methodists shall be charged at a discount of one-third from 
the retail prices, which shall, from time to time, be affixed to them respectively.” 


173 


That is to say, instead of giving you a part of the fund directly, we will give you 
a share of the profits by a reduction of seven or eight per cent. on the prices of the 
books we furnish to you. Then on page 52 :— 


“Tt is understood and agreed, that the privileges herein secured to the Canada 
Conference, shall be binding on the Methodist Book Concern until the first day of 
May, 1852, next ensuing the present date.” 


So that this arrangement was to continue for sixteen years. Then again, (p. 52 :)— 


“ Finally, it is hereby mutually understood and agreed, that the foregoing arrange- 
ment is considered as a full, and definite, and satisfactory adjustment of the question 
which has arisen between the Canada Conference and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, on the subject of the Methodist Book Concern.” 


Then on the 23d of May, 1832, (p. 52, but which should be on p. 41,) after the 
Canada Church had presented itself as an independent, we find :— 


“ May 23, 1832.—On motion of P. Akers, which was seconded, Resolved, That a 
copy of the resolution of the last General Conference, by which the Canada Conference 
was allowed to dissolve connexion with the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States, and also a copy of the acts of this General Conference on Canada 
affairs, accompany the resolutions about to be presented to the annual conferences,”’ 


Now, what was the result of this Canada transaction? In the first place, the 
Canada Conference conceived that this General Conference could divide itself without 
schism. Secondly, this Methodist Church did consent to the Canada Conference 
organizing itself as a Methodist Episcopal Church without a schism. Thirdly, it 
dealt and treated with it upon a claim of right, as a Church properly organized, and 
not schismatic. And what did it hesitate about? The General Conference hesi- 
tated only on the subject of its power to divide the funds, under the sixth restrictive 
article, with the Canada Connexion. In other words, they assented in the fullest 
manner to its being not a schismatic Church, but a separation merely. All that they 
hesitated about was the effect of that upon the sixth restrictive article in reference to 
the Book Concern, and whether they would change it. They submitted that to the 
annual conferences, and these decided against the change. That is to say, they de- 
cided that although these persons were still distressed travelling preachers, supernu- 
merary, and worn-out preachers, perfectly good Methodists, yet after the separa- 
tion they conceived that the sixth restrictive article prevented the Conference from 
turning over the funds. That was all they doubted. They doubted not that these 
beneficiaries remained entitled. They did not, they could not doubt that ; but they had 
the doubts which usually belong to persons who deal in literal considerations. That 
was their doubt. So far as it went, it is a decision against our views. I do not 
blink the question ; nor do I trouble my friends to prove that the Conference consi- . 
dered that the sixth restrictive article prevented them from dividing these funds even 
with the meritorious ministers in this conference. But I say, moreover, that if they 
had not terminated that question by a settlement, it would have been subjected to a 
much better determination as a question of law from the courts of law, than it 
received as a question of charity by the votes of the General and Annual Confer- 
ences. It would have been brought to some legal tribunal, which would have’ exer- 
cised legal skill and legal judgment, and exercised a wider view on the subject of charity 
than it was possible for gentlemen, limited as these were in knowledge on a subject 
of this sort, to do. So far as their action went, they acknowledged a separation of 
the Church as being no schism, and that the Canadian ministry was a perfectly 
Christian ministry, and that they remained in that Canadian Church without blame 
and reproach. After the separation, the judgment of three General Conferences 


174 


most distinctly recognised as valid and proper this separation, and not as seceding or 
schismatical. 

Moreover, the whole effect of this jadgment, as the gentlemen may choose to claim 
it, is altogether weakened when you look at the manner in which they felt them- 
selves constrained to deal with the subject and with this Church. They, in the first 
place, and in the most explicit manner, acknowledged this as a matter of right, and 
were acting in reference to what they conceived to be a very wrong idea of the sub- 
ject on the part of the annual conferences. When they originally submitted it to 
the annual conferences, it was probably upon the belief of that General Conference 
of 1832 that the annual conferences would view this question as they themselves did. 
They were disappointed when the vote of the annual conferences came in. Being dis- 
appointed in this result, what did they do? They gave to the Canada Conference 
out of this fund, which, if it belonged to any one, belonged to these distressed travel- 
ling, supernumerary, and superannuated preachers, their wives, widows, and children, 
seven per cent. on the gross proceeds of the books with which they furnished them. 
If the position of our learned friends is correct, they had no right to give it. Now, 
they had acknowledged the principle of right, they had acknowledged the principle of 
law, they had themselves confessed that they did not carry it out, they had confessed 
it was wrong that they did not carry it out, and that they had done that which they 
were not justified m doing except under the imputation of a breach of charitable 
trust. They knew that was not right, and they meant nobly and honourably to re- 
pair the wrong they had’committed. That is the Canada case. 

I submit to your Honours that the necessity of the case, in a body constituted as 
this General Conference was, necessarily involves the power of division. This, be it 
remembered, is not the power to sanction deviation as to doctrine, it is not the 
power of sanctioning secession ; it is the simple power of separating for the sake of 
convenience and efficiency into separate bodies with the same doctrines, and to be in 
every respect the same, except as to the unwieldiness of the general body which is 
to govern. I call attention to the twenty-third article of religion, upon p. 19 of the 
Discipline of 1840, and p. 26 of our book No. 1 :— 


“XXIII. Of the Rulers of the United States of America.—The president, the con- 
gress, the general assemblies, the governors, and the councils of State, as the dele- 
gates of the people, are the rulers of the United States of America, according to 
the division of power made to them by the constitution of the United States, and by 
the constitutions of their respective States. And the said States are a sovereign and 
independent nation, and ought not to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction.” 


Then in a note, they add :— 


“« As far as it respects civil affairs, we believe it the duty of Christians, and espe- 
cially all Christian ministers, to be subject to the supreme authority of the country 
where they may reside, and to use all laudable means to enjoin obedience to the 
powers that be; and, therefore, it is expected that all our preachers and people, who 
may be under the British or any other government, will behave themselves as peace- 
able and orderly subjects.” 


Now, this article of religion evidently supposes that the Methodist Church may ex- 
tend itself by having Methodist societies ‘under the British, or any other government.” 
That is to be taken as a part of the constitution of Methodism. Now, suppose 
that, instead of the conquest by this country over the vast West, it had been merely 
the natural progress of emigration into Spanish or uncivilized countries, and they 
had declared themselves independent. Then the Methodist societies which had been 
established, would have been in connexion with the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
That extension of territory has taken place under the circumstance of the same civil 


175 


dominion, instead of its being under different civil dominion. Is it possible to sup- 
pose that the legislative body of a Church, looking to such a spread over the world, 
should have conceived that it should have no power to separate itself into govern- 
ments for different parts of it, without those governments being actually schismatic 
and separate !—that whatever difference of circumstance might be, it was not in the 
power of this general body to form itself into separate bodies, without those separate 
bodies being essentially schismatical, so that whatever belongs to the preachers of the 
general bodies shall not belong to the preachers of a separate body, except as a 
matter which is to be got over by some leaping over the difficulty, as was done in 
the Canada case? Would they say, that that which was a question of right should 
not be decided by the general governing body of the Church, but should be de- 
cided by an artificial and fettered judgment, which, when I come to consider it, I 
think I can show to the Court, has not, and cannot have any relation to this sub- 
ject. Isay, when you take into consideration the idea of the Methodists as being a 
strongly aggressive body, spreading itself over the earth, so as to embrace the lower 
classes of the people in a degree which no other denomination has ever pretended to 
do; and when you consider this provision in the very articles of religion looking 
to its spread beyond the limits of the United States, you cannot for an instant suppose 
that in that Discipline the genetal governing body is restricted (without their being 
any restriction in terms on the subject) from consenting to a separation of the Church 
into as many general governing bodies as the necessities of the case might require. 

As to the consequence of that principle upon the fund, I prefer to suspend any 
argument until I come to consider it specially. I am now considering, and solely 
considering, whether this General Conference has not the power to consent to a divi- 
sion without its being schismatic, and without its disqualifying those members and 
clergy who adhere to the separate body. Not only does the extension of territory con- 
templated by the Discipline look to this, but the physical difficulties which grow out 
of that extension require us to contemplate it. How does this operate on the power 
of the Church, looking to the case of delegates to the conferences from Oregon and 
from California, making five or six months’ voyages, or coming in the costly way in 
which passengers come from the gold regions. By-and-by the Methodist Church in 
those countries will embrace large classes of people. They are now under fthe 
government of the General Conference here. What is to become of these men when 
this becomes to be a very populous region on the Pacific coast? Are they to be 
represented in any General Conference? Are the men from California and Oregon, 
and all the States which will be created in that region, to meet here? Or are 
those here to go over the mountains? Is time and space to be so absolutely oblite- 
rated, that the Church can go on and govern the whole of this country by one single, 
general body of delegations. I submit, that although that is no difficulty in the eye 
of a statesman with the wealth of the general government at his beck, yet to this 
Church it is an insuperable difficulty. The very extension of territory this distance, 
and the great population which may be collected in these quarters, prevent the pos- 
sibility of this Church not separating at some time or other amicably, properly, and 
faithfully, into separate governing bodies. And when that separation shall become 
expedient, it seems to me, that it would be strange doctrine to say, that this General 
Conference, which succeeded to the powers of a conference composed of all the 
power of the Church, and which in this act was not restricted, for there is no restric- 
tion on the power of division,—it would be against the very starting principle of the 
diffusiveness of this Church to hold, that it could not provide for its own government 
by separating the meeting of these ministers in a delegated body, in the manner to 
which I have alluded. 


176 


But there is the itinerancy of the bishops, according to the theory on the other side. 
It is not the theory which we adopt, that the itinerancy of a bishop means that he 
must actually visit or be capable of visiting every part, not of a diocese, but of all 
the conferences of all the Methodist Episcopal Church. Who are to be bishops? 
Are they to be young men of from seventeen to twenty years old, able to endure 
these fatigues? Or are they to be, for the most part, men of maturity, men of age, of 
ripened experience, becoming somewhat infirm from their labours? That is the 
raterial of which the bishops of this Church have always been composed. Now, let 
us see whether it would be possible, in relation to this, to carry on this Church with- 
out a separation. It seems to be impossible. The argument of our friends on the 
other side as to the itinerancy of the bishops has very little force, because it is ob- 
viously impossible that every bishop could visit every part of the jurisdiction of all 
the annual conferences. This itinerancy we suppose must be deemed to mean an 
itinerancy as opposed to a diocesan episcopacy,—that there shall not be a bishop con- 
fined to one conference, but that he shall have the duty, and shall take the office, of 
visiting all the conferences in a certain large Connexion. 

Again: differences of climate may well call for a division or separation of the 
Church. The population of this Northern country, although considerable, is yet very 
far short of that which upon every principle we may soon expect to find it. So of 
the Southern country. Therefore, the labours of these bishops will very materially 
increase with an increase of population, and it may be very difficult to find bishops 
who would be able to serve in this Northern and Southern Church, under this dif- 
ference of climate. That very difference of climate may make a very grievous 
difficulty with this Church to carry on its system without a separation into parts. 
And is it a fact that this constitution, which contemplates this great activity and 
diffusiveness, is so limited by implication—because there is no expression to limit it— 
that it can never adapt itself to such a pressing difficulty, which is already at hand ? 
I suppose, in fact, this difficulty existed before the separation; the Northern and 
Southern bishops could not very well interchange with each other; and I am told, 
that one of the bishops has not been South for some ten or fifteen years, and no 
doubt for the best of reasons. 

I propose, now, to allude to another difficulty, which is the very thing that has 
occurred in this case—a difference in the temper of the people. Here is a part of 
this great community which tolerates slavery, and a part in which slavery is un- 
known. How do they treat it? This Church treats slavery as an evil—the same as 
the existence of crime, of poverty, of disease ; and the difference between the two 
parties is how to treat it. One says, ‘“‘ Extirpate it ;” the other says, ‘‘ We cannot 
extirpate it, but we shall be extirpated if we attempt it.” This body has said to its 
private members, ‘“ You may entertain your views about this and be in good stand- » 
ing and connexion.” These members are the ones to whom the bishop is to make 
his visitations, and over whom his supervision of the preachers is eventually to take 
effect. Now, is it possible to say, that in such a country as ours, where this diffi- 
culty has always been more or less great, this Church could prosper if they did not 
tolerate it? It would be like supposing a man could run when his legs were mana- 
cled. I contend that it was a necessary act of preservation, that, in the event 
that the temper of the people made a co-operation of all the parts inconvenient and 
impracticable, they had the power of division or separation, in order to reach a large 
body of the people of this country. Is it to be conceived of, that the constitution of 
this Church did not allow, but forbade by implication, that there should be an organ- 
ization adapted to the different temper of the people? Why, if the doctrine which 
is presented here be correct, that no bishop should be a slaveholder, that he should 


177 


have no sympathy with those who held slaves, the Southern country would always 
be visited by really foreign bishops. Is it not palpable, that such a system could 
not operate in the Southern country? Must not these gentlemen have seen that 
men never would receive religious instruction altogether from strangers, and whose 
being strangers would be evidence of contempt towards those whom they visited 1 
I submit, that it would be the last thing to suppose of the wise constructors of this 
system, that they should have made no provision whereby this Church might adapt 
itself, by a division, to the great end of carrying the Gospel, without offence, to all 
the different parts of this extensive country. 

I would advert now to another matter—political dissensions, political disruptions. 
Is this Church so constituted, that it shall be powerless to meet any such exigency ? 
Look to the case of Canada. That was in the connexion of the Church in this 
country. There was a war between this country and Great Britain; and members 
of this Church were arrayed against each other. Both parties had felt the conse- 
quences of war. And was this Church so powerless that it could not lawfully con- 
sent to the Methodists in Canada organizing a separate Church, without their being 
schismatical and separatists? They have practically solved the question, and solved 
it according to good sense, and solved it against that restrictive implication which 
they wish to insert in this Discipline. 

Again: the number of delegates which might be sent, might make a necessity for a 
division. ‘There is an extent to which this evil might be limited, by lessening the 
ratio of representation. It was originally one for five ; then one for seven ; then one 
for fourteen ; and finally one for twenty-one. It is perfectly plain, that to carry it 
very much further would leave no representation at all. If the ratio was one for one 
hundred, there would be no real representation. It might be a representation from a 
people to a government, but this was to be a representation of delegates from preach- 
ers. It was a delegation from one governing body to a superior governing body, 
What would be a ratio of one delegate to one thousand preachers? Howcould such 
a delegate feel for his constituents? How could he express their feelings There 
must be a limit to this; and when this limit should be reached, the only remedy 
would be the organization of a separate body under similar principles. 

The increase of population in this country, for the next fifty years, would of itself — 
render this body so unwieldy, that, for that reason alone, a separation would be a ne- 
cessary measure. I say that these considerations, growing out of the history of this 
body, and out of the necessity of the case, are entirely consistent with the substance 
of this Discipline. 

I turn now to the rules touching the General and annual conferences ; I come to the 
text of the constitution, so to say, (p. 27 of No. 1,)— 


“Who shall compose the General Conference, and what are the regulations and 
powers belonging to it ? 

‘ Ans. 1. The General Conference shall be composed of one member for every 
twenty-one members of each annual conference, to be appointed either by seniority 
or choice, at the discretion of such annual conference ; yet so that such representa- 
tives shall have travelled at least four full calendar years from the time that they 
were received on trial by an annual conference, and are in full connexion at the time 
of holding the Conference.” 


Observe the character of this body. These delegates are “to be appointed either 
by seniority or choice,” and they are to be taken from the constituent body whom 
they represent :— 


«3. At all times when the General Conference is met, it shall take two-thirds of 


the representatives of all the annual conferences to make a quorum for transacting 
Pasties: 9-8) aR ee NES SA ee SS Re SS 


12 


178 


“5, The General Conference shall have full powers to make rules and regula- 
tions for our Church, under the following limitations and restrictions.” 


I submit that we should construe these articles, on the supposition that the powers 
of the Conference were great enough to have these restrictions carved out of them. 
These powers would have embraced everything which the restrictions carved out, if 
these restrictions had not been imposed. The expression on this subject, in logic, I 
suppose, is, that “the exception proves the rule ;” that is, if there is a necessity for 
the exception, it is a proof that the rule would extend to the excepted case if the 
exception did not exist. Now, what is the first restriction ? 


‘“¢ The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our articles of reli- 
gion, nor establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present 
existing and established standards of doctrine.” 


Does not the putting in of this restriction admit that the power of the Conference 
would have been extensive enough to change their doctrines, if this restriction had not 
been inserted? Otherwise, it would be idle to put it in. How extensive then are 
the powers of this Conference! It could now change the whole character of the body 
but for this restriction. Then the second restriction is :— 


“‘They shall not allow of more than one representative for every fourteen members 
of the annual conference, nor allow of a less number than one for every thirty: pro- 
vided, nevertheless, that when there shall be in any annual conference a fraction of 
two-thirds the number which shall be fixed for the ratio of representation, such annual 
conference shall be entitled to an additional delegate for such fraction ; and provided 
also, that no conference shall be denied the privilege of two delegates.” 


If it had not been for this second restrictive article, the General Conference might 
have allowed the rate of representation to vary in any indefinite mode they pleased. 
They might have bridged the difficulties which are constantly occurring in the history 
of large bodies. They might, as is sometimes done in England, have swamped the 
peerage by the creation of new peers. They might, on a temporary occasion, have 
allowed to the Northern or the Southern conferences a double or triple representation. 
This restriction was introduced to prevent this being done. Does not this show a 
kind of omnipotence, so to say, in the power of this body, so far as this Church is 
concerned? Is it not the power of parliament itself, that can change the time for 
which it was elected to serve? It can change the subject of representation ; it can 
change and alter the franchise ; it can change everything about it. So could this 
body ; and so can this body, except according to this restriction. ‘Then, 


“3. They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our government, so as to do 
away episcopacy, or destroy the plan of our itinerant general superintendency.”’ 


* Destroy”’ is the word. Without this restriction could they not have altered and 
done away with episcopacy? Could they not have destroyed the general superin- 
tendency? They were in fact the Church; they were the general council of the 
Church, with the primitive and original power and authority of the Church as a 
Church. What does the phrase, ‘so as to do away episcopacy,” mean? Why, that 
they may vary episcopacy ; they may limit it, but shall not ‘‘destroy” the plan of 
our itinerant general superintendency. They may make the itinerancy, instead of 
being absolutely general, general according to circumstances ; they may excuse a 
bishop from running all over the United States ; they may excuse a man disqualified 
by his peculiar notions, and not disturb the plan of general itinerant superintendency. 
I know very well the extent to which we go for these gentlemen’s benefit in the case 
of Bishop Andrew, when we make these remarks. But we cannot read this article 
without seeing that whatever can be done in consistence with the language and 


12% 


179 


spirit of the third restrictive article, the General Conference can do. They, there- 
fore, can do anything with the plan of episcopacy, except doing it away. That is 
their power, without regard to the annual conferences. Then, 


«4. They shall not revoke or change the general rules of the United Societies.” 


These are the rules of Church membership. They are the modes by which men 
attach themselves to the integral societies of this Methodist Connexion. Then again, 


‘©. They shall not do away the privileges of our ministers or preachers of trial by a 
committee, and of an appeal ; neither shall they do away the privileges of our mem- 
bers of trial before the society, or by a committee, and of an appeal.” 


They are not to do away with the mode of trial, but they may regulate everything 
about it ; they may say how the trial shall be conducted. They are not to do away 
these privileges of the preachers and members. ‘Then, finally, 


“6. They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book Concern, nor of the 
Charter Fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of the travelling, supernu- 
merary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children.” 


They may deal with it in any way, except that they shall not appropriate it to any 
other purpose ; but we are not upon that now. We are now upon the question of 
consenting to a separation of the Church into parts. Is there any restriction which 
prevents that? Is there any provision which says that this Church shall not divide 
itself nto parts? But the gentlemen will doubtless say, this constitution contains 
within itself an article for its own amendment. I beg their pardon. It contams an 
article for amendment only, in regard to these restrictive rules. If the thing proposed 
to be amended is not in the restrictive articles, then the vote of the conferences can- 
not change it, and the vote of one single conference standing out, would defeat any 
change in the constitution of the Church. There is no power of change as to matters 
not in the restrictive articles ; and the very fact that there is no power of change 
except as to these restrictive articles, shows that there is no limitation of the authority 
of the Church except these restrictive articles. 

On the subject of this power of the General Conference, I would ask, What restric- 
tive article is conceived to be violated by a Plan of Separation which adopts every 
restrictive article, and all the terms of the constitution? Which is the article that 
is violated? Isit changing the articles of religion? If it does, it is restricted ; if it 
does not, it is not restricted. I am at a loss to know what article of religion is 
changed, by allowing the Southern Church to organize itself as a new Church, with 
the very same article. Does it change the ratio of representation? Does it, in the 
sense of the third restriction, do away episcopacy, or destroy the plan of general 
itinerant superintendency ? In other words, does it convert the Methodist bishop into 
a diocesan bishop in any sense whatever? I know that this may be a matter of 
degree—a bishop might be limited to one or two conferences.- That would be, I 
admit, a violation of the spirit of the article, and indeed of the article itself; but I 
ask, if limiting a bishop to thirteen conferences, more conferences than existed at the 
time this constitution was adopted, with more persons to be governed, was dong 
away with the episcopacy, or destroying the plan of itinerant general superintend- 
ency? Does it revoke or change the general rules of the United Societies? Does 
it take away the privileges of preachers and members to trial? Does it appropriate 
the produce of the Book Concern, or of the Chartered Fund, to any other purpose 
than the benefit of travelling, supernumerary, and superannuated preachers? Does 
it vary the persons by whom these contributions must reach the beneficiaries? I 
suppose that, under the Plan of Separation, the part of this Book Concern which 


180 


must go to the beneficiaries in the Southern Church is to be applied according to the 
Discipline of 1840. 

Suppose, now, that the Plan of Separation is absolutely void, and that, by reason 
of the mistake into which we have been led, we are not schismatical, but merely con- 
tumacious, and have not come up to the General Conference. The fund is to be dis- 
tributed. Who are to distribute it? The very annual conferences at the South, as 
they are now constituted. They are the very original bodies of Methodism. They 
would take this fund, and they would distribute it to the very same beneficiaries. 
This is a practical thing; and our learned friends, when they come to speak of the 
Plan of Separation violating the order of the Church, in allowing it to divide itself 
into two parts, and to give to each part the vitality of a complete organization, must 
show practically how it defeated this restrictive system. I submit that it did not. 

I come now to the judgment of this body on this very subject. I have said what 
I need to say on the subject of the judgment of the Canada Conference. The Gene- 
ral Conference never left it to the annual conferences to determine whether they had 
the power of assenting to the Canada Methodists forming a separate body. They 
never hesitated about that; they never doubted that that formed a true Methodist 
Episcopal Church, not separatist nor schismatic. That was the Conference of 1832 ; 
it was followed up by the action of the Conference of 1836. That of 1840 had no 
connexion with this subject. The judgment of the Conference of 1844 was in favour 
of this view of the power of division. I shall examine the Plan of Separation more 
particularly hereafter ; but I would now remark that it was never submitted to the 
annual conferences to say whether there should be a separate organization or not. 
The question submitted was a very different one, whether they should alter the sixth 
restrictive article, so as to put this fund at the command of two-thirds of the General 
Conference ; so that, instead of having the profits of this Book Concern applied to 
the relief of beneficiaries, they might, if that proposition had passed, have voted it to 
the establishment of a colony in Liberia, or to any other purpose than this. They 
did not submit to the annual conferences the question whether they should separate 
the Church into two parts, so that each should be a genuine, a true Church ; and I 
may be permitted to say, in relation to that Conference, that it was composed of ex- 
ceedingly able men, as the documents show. 

One other remark on this subject, and I leave this particular question—this power 
to divide itself into two bodies,—that is, the opinion of the bishops, p. 101, book No. 2. 
I think our reference to this, in our bill of complaint, has not been understood by the 
other side. Ido not believe that the bishops have power to alter the constitution 
of this Church, nor give any declaratory opinions which can bind the Church. We 
do not present it in that way, no more than we would present the judgment from 
Lord Lyndhurst to bind this Court; but what we do present it for, is, to show that 
in the judgment of the coolest, best, and the wisest men in that Church, there was 
no hesitation as to the existence of this power, and that it was properly and well 
exercised in 1844, It is, asI might say, the opinion of highly-respectable persons 
conversant with that which we are now discussing. I will read it. 


“This council met in the city of New-York, July 2, 1845, and was attended by 
Bishops Hedding, Waugh, Morris, and Janes. Bishop Hamline sent his opinion in 
writing on the points to be acted on by the council; Bishop Soule did not attend ; 
and Bishop Andrew, being suspended, was not mvited. Besides agreeing on a new 
plan of visitation, the bishops adopted the followmg resolutions, intended for the 
government of their own administration :— 

«<1. Resolved, That the Plan reported by the select committee of nine at the last 
General Conference, and adopted by that body, in regard to a distinct ecclesiastical 
connexion, should such a course be found necessary by the annual conferences in 


181 


the slaveholding States, is regarded by us as of binding obligation in the premises, so 
far as our administration is concerned.’ ” 

That is to say, we regard it as binding on us, and shall obey it; the Conference 
of 1848 said they considered it null and void, and that the Conference of 1844 had 
no power to pass it. ‘ 

“2. Resolved, That in order to ascertain fairly the desire and purpose of those 
societies bordering on the line of division, in regard to their adherence to the Church, 
North or South, due notice should be given of the time, place, and object of the 
meeting for the above purpose, at which a chairman and secretary should be ap- 
pointed, and the sense of all the members present should be ascertained, and the 
same be forwarded to the bishop who may preside at the ensuing annual conferences ; 
or forward to said presiding bishop a written request to be recognised, and have a 
preacher sent them, with the names of the majority appended thereto.” 


They not only declare it is binding so far as their administration is concerned, but 
they institute a mode to carry out successfully that which their successors call a 
separatist and schismatic body. Ido not propose this as binding your judgments ; 
perhaps the judgment of these bishops is of the least value in this matter. But so 
far as this religious body is concerned, I must submit, and certainly out of respect 
to the character of these bishops, that when they adopted these resolutions, and 
signed this paper, and undertook to carry out this plan of organization of the South- 
ern Church, by having a vote taken as to which Church the societies should adhere, 
their judgment was in favour of the validity of the separation; that it was compe- 
tent for the General Conference, for grave reasons, to separate itself into two bodies, 
each of which should be a true, genuine, and authentic hierarchy in this Church, and 
calculated to carry out its excellent purpose. This minute was passed July 2, 1845 ; 
the Southern Church had organized and issued its manifesto May 17. It was there- 
fore a declaration in the very sight of the difficulties. Let us look a little at 
these acts. 

The Conference of 1844, without any hesitation, passed a plan for an amicable 
division. Here is nothing said against it; they felt themselves at liberty to vote 
to organize anew Church. The bishops take the act up when the Church was or- 
ganized, and when it was still in the power of individuals to withdraw, and say, ‘““ We 
act in obedience to this administration ; we, the Northern bishops, acting together, 
some of us being present, and another giving his opinion in writing, tell you, Go on, 
form that Southern body ; choose your adherence,”—and they do it. What then? 
Says the Conference of 1848, ‘By that act you become separatists, and all this 
great fund, the produce of common labour, toil, economy, activity, and suffering, 
you, by adopting this plan, and acting as your bishops have acted, in conformity and 
obedience to it, have forfeited for yourselves, for your wives, for your children, for 
the orphans of your brethren; and as a matter of conscience we cannot let you 
touch a dollar of it; but our beneficiaries shall have three parts where before they 
had but two.”” That is the way in which this controversy presents itself, I am sure 
unwittingly and unexpectedly to those who brought themselves to make it. But 
there it is; we have become schismatics. We have forfeited not for ourselv+s, we 
who are the belligerents; we, who engage in the revolution, may afford to be 
hanged if we do not succeed; these are the terms on which we enter. But after 
this act, into which we enter by their invitation, sanctioned by a General Confer- 
ence composed of men of greater ability, perhaps, than ever met in the same Church, 
and sanctioned by their bishops who co-operated with us in the formation of this 
Church, we are told, in 1848, “when you did that, you put yourselves out of the 
pale of this Church; you forfeited, not your right to take alms, but your retiring 
pensions, your savings’-bank deposits, your life insurances; your wives, your 


182 


widows, and your children, all suffer in this common calamity.” It is the visitation 
of the sin of Adam in a very different way upon all this connexion of this Church, 
for doing an act which everybody, in 1845 and 1846, thought lawful. That is the 
way in which the controversy now stands ; and I propose now to take up the subject 
of whether there was any doubt on the effect of that Plan of Separation. I have 
finished what I have to say on the power of the Conferences. 

Upon this point I say that the General Conference of 1844 did, in fact and on a 
proper ground, consent to such division, to take effect immediately, in the choice of 
the Southern conferences, and without any condition. This Plan is found on p. 128 of 
our book. I will first read it, and make some remarks upon its text ; and then consider 
the circumstances under which it was passed, to see whether it was considered 
transitory, or whether it was adopted as a final thing which everybody supposed 
would be acted upon and become permanent. 


“The select committee of nine, to consider and report on the Declaration of the 
delegates from the conferences of the slaveholding States, beg leave to submit the 
following report :—”’ 


It has been made a question, whether this Plan of Separation was adopted upon 
the existence of the difficulties to which we have been led in the reading of the 
Proofs. Our friends on the other side say it did not. 


‘Whereas a Declaration has been presented to this General Conference, with the 
signatures of fifty-one delegates of the body, from thirteen annual conferences in the 
slaveholding States, representing that, for various reasons enumerated, the objects 
and purposes of the Christian mmistry and Church organization cannot be success- 
fully accomplished by them under the jurisdiction of this General Conference as now 
constituted.” 


That is the declaration of an existing fact in the opinion of those delegates. 


“And whereas, in the event of a separation, a contingency to which the Declara- 
tion asks attention as not improbable, we esteem it the duty of this General Confer- 
ence to meet the emergency with Christian kindness and the strictest equity.” 


This bears on what I have said as to its being an amicable separation. They 
thought it their duty to meet it with Christian kindness and the strictest equity ; 
to which I would introduce as a note what they declared when the Canada Confer- 
ence spoke on the subject of the Book Concern, that it was just in regard to their 
former relations and their liberality that they should have their share. 


«Therefore, Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences in Ge- 
neral Conference assembled, 

“1. That, should the annual conferences in the slaveholding States find it neces- 
sary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connexion, the following rule shall be observed 
with regard to the Northern boundary of such connexion.” 


Permit me to call your attention to an alteration here ; it stood as originally pre- 
sented by the committee, “That should the delegates from the conferences in the 
slaveholding States find it necessary ;” thus leaving it to the delegates then present. 
These delegates shrunk from that responsibility, and on motion of Mr. Paine, the 
words “delegates from the,” were stricken out. But it was intended as a Plan to 
be made and acted upon as much, whether it was the delegates who decided for it, 
or the conferences from which they came. ‘The object of those delegates was to 
change the responsibility of the mode of action from themselves to the conferences 
which they represented. 


‘‘ All the societies, stations, and conferences, adhering to the Church in the South, 
by a vote of a majority of the members of said societies, stations, and conferences, 


183 


shall remain under the unmolested pastoral care of the Southern Church, and the 
ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church shali in no wise attempt to organize 
Churches or societies within the limits of the Church, South, nor shall they attempt 
to exercise any pastoral oversight there; it being understood that the ministry of 
the South reciprocally observe the same rule in relation to stations, societies, and 
conferences adhering, by a vote of a majority, to the Methodist Episcopal Church ; 
provided, also, that this rule shall apply only to societies, stations, and conferences 
bordering on the line of division, and not to interior charges, which shall in all cases 
be left to the care of that Church within whose territory they are situated ” 


Here is a provision as to how the boundary shall be ascertained. It does not de- 
fine it exactly, but says: ‘“‘ Here are Southern delegates ; we are satisfied where the 
boundary shall be, but there will be bordering societies which may be divided, and to 
provide for that, we adopt this article ;’’ and this article the bishops, in 1845, at- 
tempted to carry out. I think it shows very clearly that it was to be an immediate 
division. 

“2. That ministers, local and travelling, of every grade and office in the Metho- 


dist Episcopal Church may, as they prefer, remain in that Church, or, without blame, 
attach themselves to the Church, South.” 


Could that consist with the idea of aseparating and schismatic Church? If my 
learned friends take up the doctrines of their answer and the Conference of 1848, 
and make this Church schismatic, they have to give some beautiful reason for the 
introduction of this provision. They could not, certainly, but be blamed for uniting 
with a schismatic Church. They would have committed an absurdity in sanctioning 
a schism which they had no right to sanction in any way. It meant to say to all the 
parties attached to the Church, South, that there should be no blame about it—that 
they should be just as good Methodist ministers as before. ‘That is what we mean 
by an amicable separation, and treating with the “ strictest equity.” 


“3. Resolved, by the delegates of all the annual conferences in General Confer- 
ence assembled, That we recommend to all the annual conferences, at their first ap- 
proaching sessions, to authorize a change of the sixth restrictive article, so that the 
first clause shall read thus: ‘They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book 
Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, to any other purpose other than for the benefit 
of the travelling, supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, 
widows, and children, and to such other purposes as may be determined upon by the 
votes of two-thirds of the members of the General Conference.’ ”’ 


That was a recommendation in no respect conditional to the two previous. It in- 
volves something so very different from what was called for by the idea of separation, 
that it is evident that its being found here was simply because an occasion was thus 
presented of having a question of this kind made and disposed of. ‘The effect of it 
was, that while it preserved the same right in these original beneficiaries, it would 
allow the General Conference to apply that fund to any other purpose that two- 
thirds of the Conference should choose. That goes widely beyond anything con- 
nected with the separation of the Church into two parts. ‘There had been difficulties 
in the Canada case, a compromise had then been made, and the body had been put in 
a very awkward position as the administrators of the charity. They wished to avoid 
that here. But they did not make this as a condition upon which the Church should 
be separated; if it had been adopted, it would have had an effect beyond this 
separation. 


“4. That whenever the annual conferences, by a vote of three-fourths of all their 
members voting on the third resolution, shall have concurred in the recommendation 
to alter the sixth restrictive article, the agents at New-York and Cincinnati shall, 
and they are hereby authorized and directed to deliver over to any authorized agent 


184 


or appointee of the Church, South, should one be organized, all notes and book ac- 
counts against the ministers, Church members, or citizens within its boundaries, 
with authority to collect the same for the sole use of the Southern Church, and that 
said agents also convey to the aforesaid agent or appointee of the South, all the real 
estate, and assign to him all the property, including presses, stock, and all right and 
interest connected with the printing establishments at Charleston, Richmond, and 
Nashville, which now belong to the Methodist Episcopal Church.” 


It was in ease of the agents that this was done. If this should be done, then it 
was a case in which the agents needed no legal protection. They were trustees; it 
might be that the trustees could be changed, and the fund dealt with upon intrinsic 
right by representatives of beneficiaries in the Southern conferences without this, but 
it would undoubtedly be a case calling for judicial construction. The object was to 
make it easy to the agents. They did not pretend to say anything about the matter 
of right. That was already adjudged. 


“5. That when the annual conferences shall have approved the aforesaid change 
in the sixth restrictive article, there shall be transferred to the above agent of the 
Southern Church so much of the capital and produce of the Methodist Book Con- 
cern as will, with the notes, book accounts, presses, &c., mentioned in the last reso- 
lution, bear the same proportion to the whole property of said Concern that the 
travelling preachers in the Southern Church shall bear to all the travelling ministers 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church; the division to be made on the basis of the num- 
ber of travelling preachers in the forthcoming minutes.” 


As I remarked, that was done in ease of the agents. The only thing to which a 
condition was applied was the turning over by the agents. It was not left to three- 
fourths of the conferences to determine whether the new Church should be formed. 
That was upon the Plan, showing that it would be absurd to base it upon this re- 
strictive article. In the mimutes of 1848, it is set up that the whole of this Plan was 
conditional upon the passing of that restrictive article. I submit upon that subject, 
here and finally, that by the first resolution the decision of the separation was left to 
the slaveholding conferences, whereas the restrictive article was to be acted upon by 
three-fourths of all the conferences; and I submit that it isan end to the question 
of what the Plan of Separation meant. It may be avoided; but as to saying that a 
Plan of Separation, which was to depend upon the election of the Southern confer- 
ences, was to be avoided or not, according to the election of three-fourths of all the 
conferences, I submit is a plain, palpable contradiction and absurdity. 

Now upon the mode of operation of this Plan. It was for a division of the funds. 
The produce of this fund was always divided according to the numbers returned in 
the minutes of the annual conferences every year to the book-steward, the princi- 
pal of the Book Concern. The number of preachers would change exceedingly every 
year, and if we can ascertain when the proportion was to be taken by which this 
division was to take place, we ascertain the time when the division was to take place. 
This gives the most positive determination of time. It adds: “the division (of the 
capital) is to be made on the basis of the number of travelling preachers in the forth- 
coming minutes,’’—minutes that were then prepared. If the Plan of Division had 
not taken place then, immediately, it never could have taken place under this Plan, 
except with great inconvenience. I suppose, therefore, in reading this paper there 
can be no doubt that it contemplated an immediate division. 


“6. That the above transfer shall be in the form of annual payments of $25,000 
per annum, and specifically in stock of the Book Concern, and in Southern notes 
and accounts due the establishment, and accruing after the first transfer mentioned 
above; and until the payments are made, the Southern Church shall share in all the 





185 


net profits of the Book Concern, in the proportion that the amount due them, or in 
arrears, bears to all the property of the Concern.” 


I submit that there is a precision about that which looks to something already pro- 
vided. They had no doubt of the judgment of the Southern conferences ; they had 
no doubt that that judgment would be passed. One cannot read those reports of 
1844, without seeing the most settled principles in hostility, which show that no 
change was to be expected until men shall change their most settled, permanent con- 
victions. They had no doubt that the separation was to take place. 

What next do they do? Taking that doubt of the continuance of life which fills 
every preacher’s discourses—that uncertainty of life-estates which visits every 
lawyer when dealing with life, what do they do? 


“7. That Nathan Bangs, George Peck, and James B. Finley be, and they are 
hereby appointed commissioners to act in concert with the same number of commis- 
sioners appointed by the Southern organization, (should one be formed,) to estimate 
the amount which will fall due to the South by the preceding rule, and to have full 
powers to carry into effect the whole arrangement proposed with regard to the divi- 
sion of property, should the separation take place. And if by any means a’ vacancy 
occurs in this board of commissioners, the book committee at New-York shall fill 
said vacancy.” 


Were these the gentlemen who were to live until the experiment was tried of Virgi- 
nia, Georgia, and South Carolina submitting to have bishops chosen who might live not 
in that State, and who should be acceptable to the Northern people? Was it that 
these commissioners were to remain a sort of immortals until this thing could be 
tested? Is it meant that they named these gentlemen, men of age, not looking to very 
great endurance of life, but looking rather to its uncertainty, and did not expect the 
Plan to be acted upon without delay? They were to estimate the amount which fell 
due to the South, and have full powers to carry into effect the whole arrangement. 
They were not to wait for another General Conference to supply a vacancy, but to 
have men on the ground for it. 


‘“«8. That whenever any agents of the Southern Church are clothed with legal au- 
thority or corporate power to act in the premises, the agents at New-York are hereby 
authorized and directed to act in conference with said Southern agents, so as to give 
the provisions of these resolutions a legally-binding force.” 


“A legally-binding force,” without the action of three-fourths of all the annual 
conferences. As soon as the Southern Conference organized and appointed commis- 
sioners with legal authority, that is, according to the law of the Church, to act upon the 
matter, they were to act, and their acting was to be legally binding. 


“9, That all the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church in meeting-houses, 
parsonages, colleges, schools, conference funds, cemeteries, and of everything within 
the limits of the Southern organization, shall be forever free from any claim set up on 
the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as this resolution can be of force 
in the premises.” 


Granting the most suspensive fact of that resolution, as to the doubt of the power 
to convey property, yet no one can doubt it was intended to operate immediately as 
a present relinquishment and abandonment to this Southern Church of all that be- 
longed to it. ‘This brings me to the notice of another question—and it is a vast ques- 
tion involved indirectly in this case—that if we are a schismatic Church, every 
meeting-house can legally be taken away from us by any one from the Northern 
Conference. If it recognises the Southern Church as a true Methodist Church, then 


186 


this resolution was of no force, except merely to show that this possession of that 
property by the Southern Church was with the entire assent of the Northern breth- 
ren; and with that sort of assent they say, We have no title to it, and therefore this 
resolution does not give us a title. 


*©10. That the Church so formed in the South shall have a common right to use 
all the copyrights in possession of the Book Concerns at New-York and Cincinnati 
at the time of the settlement by the commissioners. 

“11. That the book agents at New-York be directed to make such compensation 
to the conferences South, for their dividend from the Chartered Fund, as the com- 
missioners above provided for shall agree upon.” 


That Chartered Fund was located in Philadelphia, and held under charter there. 
It could not be specifically turned over. 


“‘ 12. That the bishops be respectfully requested to lay that part of this report re- 
quiring the action of the annual conferences before them as soon as possible, begin- 
ning with the New-York Conference.”’ 


It has been asserted in the Answer, and minutes, and journals of 1848, and in the 
report on the state of the Church, that all this document was conditional upon being 
acted upon by three-fourths of the conferences. What does the Plan ask the bishops 
to submit to the conferences? The whole of it? No; but that part requiring the 
action of the annual conferences. What part? ‘The third resolution. So that the 
idea that the Plan is conditional all through, is contradicted by this last article, 
whereby nothing is to be submitted to the annual conferences by the bishops, but 
that part which relates to the alteration of the sixth restrictive rule. The third reso- 
lution is all which the bishops ever did submit to the conferences. 

Having drawn your attention to the terms of the Plan, I propose to go into the 
circumstances under which it was adopted, to show that it was, and must be, perma- 
nent In its nature. 

The Court then adjourned. 


FOURTH DAY—Tuourspay, May 22, 1851. 


Mr. Lorp,—If your Honours please—I yesterday had reached that part of the 
discussion of this case which led me to the language of the Plan of Separation. I 
had read that Plan, and made some comments upon its language, to show that it was 
a clear assent of the Methodist Episcopal Church of 1844 to this separation; that 
it was not conditional upon the assent of three-fourths of all the conferences to the 
change in the sixth restrictive article. My object at present is to consider that Plan 
of Separation under the circumstances in which it was adopted, so that we may take 
them into view as determining the exigency to which the Plan applied, and to see 
from that whether the idea of its being a contingent thing is properly admissible ; and 
also to see whether some other allegations of the Answer, which allege that the 
separation which took place was not in pursuance or in consequence of pre-existing 
difficulties, but was a sort of fraudulent abuse of the authority conferred upon the 
Southern conferences by that Plan of 1844, are in any degree founded upon the evi- 
dence or upon truth. The parts of the Answer which draw these matters into conside- 
ration, will be found in the references which I shall give. At the 10th folio of the 
Answer they deny 


“That it was thereupon,” (that is, upon the idea of the separation being ne- 
cessary,) ‘as erroneously alleged by the plaintiffs, that the resolutions which they 
denominate the ‘ Plan of Separation,’ and which are set forth in their bill, were passed 


187 


at the General Conference of 1844, held in the city of New-York ; and these defend- 
ants say, that then, and always hitherto, the greater portion of the Church have not 
thought there was any sufficient cause for a separation or division of the Church.” 


Then again, upon folios 16 and 18 of the Answer, the defendants say :— 


“That the adoption of this resolution ”’ (that is, what I call the sentence of degra- 
dation of Bishop Andrew) “ gave offence to a minority of the members of that Gene- 
ral Conference, and who were delegates from annual conferences in the slaveholding 
States, and principally, if not wholly, induced those delegates to present a formal 
Protest against such action of the General Conference, which was admitted to record 
on its journal.” 


They seem to make a distinction in the Answer between the serious difficulties on 
the subject of slavery, and the particular and single action of that Conference in the 
case of Bishop Andrew. 


“ And which resolution, in the case of Bishop Andrew, further induced such dele- 
gates, (although without the authority of the General Conference, and in no manner 
sanctioned by any action of that body,) immediately after the adjournment of such 
General Conference of 1844,—before the happening of the contingencies mentioned 
in the so-called ‘Plan of Separation,’ necessary to give the same effect, and before 
such delegates had departed from the city of New-York,—to address a circular to 
their constituents and the ministers and members of the Church in the slaveholding 
States, therein expressing their own opinion in favour of a separation from the juris- 
diction of the General Conference, and advising the annual conferences within those 
States to elect from their own bodies, severally, delegates to a convention, proposed 
by them to be held at Louisville, Kentucky, in May following, to consider and determine 
the matter; all which finally led those annual conferences, or portions of them, at 
that convention, to withdraw and separate from the Methodist Episcopal Church ; 
to renounce and declare themselves wholly absolved from its jurisdiction, government, 
and authority ; and to institute a new and distinct ecclesiastical organization, sepa- 
rate from, and independent of, the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, under the denomination of ‘The Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ — 
which is the same organization mentioned in said bill of complaint ; and the plaintiffs, 
and all those whom they professedly represent, are adherents thereof, and are no 
longer attached to the Methodist Episcopal Church; and these defendants believe 
and submit, that these proceedings were, In no part, authorized by the rules of govern- 
ment, or the constitutional law of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as contamed in its 
Book of Discipline, but were in palpable hostility thereto.” 


Then it follows with a declaration, (folios 21 and 22,) that the resolution 


“Tn the case of Bishop Andrew, instead of moving to a secession, called for due 
submission and respect from all the delegates of that Conference, and all the minis- 
ters and members of the Church; and the defendants upon their belief, say, that the 
same, and all the proceedings of that body leading thereto, were regular, constitu- 
tional, and valid; that the voluntary connexion of Bishop Andrew with slavery was 
justly considered by a majority of said General Conference, and by most of the min- 
isters and members of the Church, as ‘ improper conduct ;’ and that every bishop is, 
by a law of the Book of Discipline, amenable to the General Conference, who are 
thereby declared to ‘have power to expel him for improper conduct, if they see it 
necessary ;’ and that such resolution and proceedings, in the case of Bishop Andrew, 
were in due accordance with the good government of the Church.” 


Then, upon folio 23, they say, after referrmg to the Plan of Separation, that it was 
passed 


“« By a majority of over three-fourths of the entire body, although, as these defend- 
ants state, such resolutions were, in respect of their operation or effect, provisional 
and contingent, were occasioned by, and based upon, the said Declaration of the South- 
ern delegates, and were intended only to meet the future emergency predicted therein, 
should the same arise ; and that such resolutions were connected with, and preceded 
by, the statement and preamble embodied in the report of the said committee of 


188 


nine, appointed by the General Conference to consider and report on such Declara- 
tion—which report was adopted by the Conference, as will appear by its printed 
journal (pp. 130, 137)—and which statement and preamble are to be taken, in con- 
nexion with said resolutions, as a part of said report thus adopted, and to which the 
defendants crave leave to refer as a part of this answer. But these defendants are 
advised by counsel, that the said resolutions, embodied in such report of the commit- 
tee of nine, called the ‘ Plan of Separation,’ were not duly or legally passed, and that 
the General Conference of 1844 had no competent, nor any valid power or authority to 
pass or adopt the said resolutions, called the ‘ Plan of Separation,’ or any or either 
of them, except that portion thereof comprising the recommendation to the annual 
conferences to change the sixth restrictive rule; and these defendants are also 
advised by counsel, that the last-named resolutions, when adopted, were null and 
void, and without any binding force or validity, except in the matter of such 
recommendation merely.” 


Then they go on and give a history of the Church. Again, upon folio 34 :— 


“ And these defendants, further answering, submit, as further advised by counsel, 
that even had the so-called ‘ Plan of Separation’ been constitutional or valid, it 
merely provided a prospective plan, which, without the happening of certain future 
conditions, or, on the failure of which conditions, or either of them, could never have, 
by its express terms, and, as defendants say, was never intended to have, any force 
or validity. And these defendants expressly aver, that these conditions have not 
happened; and they, therefore, further insist and submit, that the said so-called 
‘ Plan of Separation,’ has always been inoperative ; has never had any force or va- 
lidity ; and is absolutely null and void.” 


Then, upon folio 42, after stating that we had made this organization at the South, 
under this very nugatory, unconstitutional, conditional plan, they say,— 

‘Wherefore, these defendants insist and submit, that the ‘Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South,’ exists as a separate ecclesiastical communion, solely by the result, 
and in virtue of the acts and doings of the individual bishops, ministers, and mem- 
bers attached to such Church, South, proceeding in the premises upon their own 
responsibility ; and that such bishops, ministers, and members, have voluntarily 
withdrawn themselves from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and have renounced 
all their rights and privileges in her communion and under her government.” 


They then set up what they consider violations of the Plan, in some interference by 
preachers from the South, with societies lying north of the border; their idea being 
that this Plan was in all its parts absolutely conditional, so that if any single grain 
failed to be delivered rightly, according to the condition, it forfeited the whole. 
And then, as a climax to the force of this argument, they declare, in the Answer, 
that the General Conference, which met in May, 1848, consisting solely of members 
of the Northern annual conferences, declared, that this Conference of 1844 had no 
power to grant the division; that is to say, these twenty Northern conferences, in 
the absence of the thirteen, fourteen, or fifteen Southern, passed a solemn resolu- 
tion, that the act of the Conference of 1844 was nugatory, was null and void, with 
no effect; and in consequence of all this, we are seceders. I read now from 
folio 58 :— 

“They have voluntarily withdrawn from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and 
separated themselves from its principles and government; and have thereby re- 


nounced and /forfezted all right and claim, at law or in equity, to any portion of the 
funds and property in this cause.” 


Your Honours might have supposed, in using the word “ forfeiture”’ so often as I 
did yesterday, that I was rather stigmatizing the argument on the other side, and 
presenting it in a light they did not adopt. Now you see they put it upon the dis- 
tinct ground of forfeiture, by which we understand a penai infliction in its character, 


189 


though it be a stipulation; for the very idea of forfeiture, as distinguished from 
specific execution or compensation in damages for the want of it, is, that you im- 
pose something of much higher consequence than a mere result of a breach of condi- 
tion which insures the performance of it, and which also supposes you have some 
existing right in that which you forfeit. They, therefore, go, in that case distinctly, 
on the ground that by our acting under this Plan of Separation, we, having pre- 
viously a right, did by some matter not co-equal, not co-extensive with the character 
of the damage or injury to them, draw upon us the serious consequences of forfeiting 
a right—such a right as I had the honour to discuss before you yesterday. 

Now I am not only to consider the language,—supposing that there may be any- 
thing in that which would admit either of its being unconditional or conditional,—but 
I propose now to look at the exigency of the case, the existing state of things at the 
time these resolutions were passed, to see whether it was a contingent, a future, an 
unlikely thing, and one regarded merely as possible ; or whether, in fact, it was really 
and truly certain, that is, so certain as to scarcely leave the expectation of anything 
contrary, so that the not happening would be the matter which would surprise us ; 
and to see, also, whether, under these circumstances, this was a matter done hastily» 
or in any manner as an abuse of the authority granted to organize as a separate 
Church. 

The first question was this subject of slavery, which I certainly do not mean to 
discuss here in any extensive way, my object being to show, that upon this subject, 
whichever party in this Church may be right upon its discipline or doctrine, there 
was such a disagreement as to the discipline, as to the manner in which the Church 
was to deal with it, that without imputing blame to the one or the other party, it had 
then become so ripe that the body could not act together—a body acting not merely 
as a body to resist external violence on it, and held together by a sense of self- 
preservation in the nature of political union or league, but as a body whose object 
was to act by voluntary co-operation upon the minds of people who were to receive 
truth from peace-speaking men. I propose to show whether that state of things did 
not come to pass, in which, by reason of what had existed prior to 1844, and which 
was then simply developed,—whether that state of irreconcilable disagreement, not 
hostility in the breaking of friendly relations of gentlemen, but a hostility as to 
principles, and the mode of carrying out what may be considered the policy of this 
Church,—did not exist which made it suicidal to go in this state to attempt the 
achieving of anything upon ignorance, vice, or irreligion in any part of the world. 

On this subject of slavery, the position of this Church was ever conflicting. It 
began upon the first organization of the Church. Mr. Wesley wrote his letter in 
1784, and it was received at the Christmas conference in that year. Then, under 
the influence of Dr. Coke, a gentleman of education from Oxford, the widest principle 
of emancipation was adopted, taking it from the rule of discipline of the United 
Societies, that no one should be engaged in buying or selling men for the purpose of 
enslaving them. He attempted to bring in that speculative truth, which was clear 
in his own mind, and to make it practical in a country with which it was perfectly 
evident he had but a slight acquaintance, and in regard to which it very soon ap- 
peared that his minisirations could not be successful. He enacted rules exceed- 
ingly strong and exclusive on the subject of slavery, but even in them there came in, 
of necessity, a proviso, which definitely fixed the policy of this Church upon this 
subject. Those rules are prefaced by an acknowledgment that it was introducing a 
new term of communion into the Church, showing how great the power of this Con- 
ference was. It says :— 


“« We are deeply conscious of the impropriety of making new terms of communion 


190 


for a religious society already established, excepting on the most pressing occasion ; 
and such we esteem the practice of holding our fellow-creatures in slavery. We 
view it as contrary to the golden law of God, on which hang all the law and the 
prophets,” &c. 


They provide that every member of the society who has slaves in his possession, 
shall execute and record an instrument of manumission. 


The third of these rules is :— 


“Tn consideration that these rules form a new term of communion, every person 
concerned, who will not comply with them, shall have liberty quietly to withdraw 
himself from our society within the twelve months succeeding the notice given as 
aforesaid ; otherwise the assistant shall exclude him in the society.” 


The fifth rule is :— 


«No person holding slaves shall in future be admitted into society, or to the 
Lord’s supper, till he previously complies with these rules concerning slavery.” 


And in what follows, the whole system showed itself to be lame and imperfect, and 
that it never could be carried out :— 


“N. B. These rules are to affect the members of our society no farther than 
as they are consistent with the laws of the States in which they reside.” 


This clause never could have been introduced by the man who introduced the 
rest of the resolutions. It was yielding to the necessity of the government, and 
the condition of the people in which this society was expected to have, and where it 
has had great operation. You will see that this society in all its dealings on this 
subject, in the midst of its fluctuations as to rules, has always maintained the same 
principle. We hold slavery to be a great evil; and I am free to say, that that decla- 
ration is held as well by gentlemen of the South, as by those of the North; but the 
difficulty was how to deal with it. Some of the gentlemen said then, and say now, 
and have always said, this is a thing which, in the nature of the government under 
which we live, and the character of the institution, you cannot destroy by extirpa-_ 
tion, that is, by any immediate measures directly addressed to it; you must destroy 
it by enlightening both master and slave, inducing the master to love the liberty of 
the slave, and the slave to be fit for the enjoyment of liberty. The others took the 
ground that this is a distinct moral offence, like any other crime—like stealing—and 
shall not be tolerated at all. 

Here, at the outset, in the strongest declaration on the subject ever contained in a 
Methodist Discipline, you have a deference to the law of the country incorporated. 
Even with this qualification it was modified and abandoned next year. This system 
was found so utterly Utopian, so much like the constitution of Mr. Locke for South 
Carolina, that I venture to say it was never practised upon; and it was one other 
example of the folly of a speculative man in one country, undertaking to regulate the 
practical operations of civil and domestic, as well as of political life, in another coun- 
try with which he had but a very slight acquaintance. I do not mean to go through 
with any detail on this subject ; suffice it to say, that in 1785, experience—and behold 
how short an experience it was—less than one year !—convinced this society that those 
rules, even with the modification made by somebody who understood the subject 
better than Dr. Coke, were utterly impracticable ; it would have been the end of 
Methodism in that part of the country to which it had the greatest reference. In 
1796, the matter was referred to the yearly conference. In 1800 a more distinct 
reference to the subject of the local law was made. In 1804, the rules were still fur- 


191 


ther modified, and the very striking provision introduced, that the preachers were to 
instruct the masters to allow their slaves instruction, and teach the slaves obedience 
to their masters. By the Conference of 1808, the subject was left to the manage- 
ment of the annual conferences, and that seems also to have been the state of it 
under the Conference of 1812. In 1816 we have the following introduced :-— 


“No slaveholder shall be eligible to any official station in our Church hereafter, 
where the laws of the State in which he lives will admit of emancipation and permit 
the liberated slave to enjoy freedom.” 


There you see a distinct provision for the case of any official station, not except- 
ing a bishop, preacher, or elder ; no one possessing slaves should hold office where 
the laws permitted emancipation ; and the qualification is as extensive as the rule. 
This was the only objection on the subject. If you are a slaveholder you shall not 
be admitted to any official station, if the law allows of emancipation. If the law 
does not sanction it, the article does not apply ; in other words, it directly sanctions 
it. In 1824 the following was added :— 


‘« All our preachers shall prudently enforce upon our members the necessity of 
teaching their slaves to read the word of God; and to allow them time to attend 
upon the public worship of God on our regular days of Divine service.”’ 


In 1840, you will see that the agitation had become extreme. So far from slavery 
not being the subject of agitation, it was a subject of the most serious agitation, as 
you will see by the minutes; and upon this subject, the Reply to the Protest, which 
the gentlemen on the other side put in, gives us something instructive. If I wished 
to show the irreconcilable state of opinion in this Church upon this subject—I do 
not mean hostility between party and party, but the irreconcilable state of opinion— 
which would prevent this Church from acting in a body, I would call for this Answer 
to the Protest as the most decisive proof on the subject.—P. 113 of the first of the 
Proofs. 


“Tt is known and acknowledged by all Southern brethren, that Bishop Andrew 
was nominated by the delegates from the South Carolina and Georgia Conferences, 
as a Southern candidate for whom Northern men might vote, without doing violence 
to their principles, as he was no slaveholder.”’ 


Here you have a most distinct avowal that it was a violence to their principles to 
elect as a bishop a man with those principles which the Church most distinctly in 
its Discipline tolerated. Let us see whether in the history of that principle it showed 
any diminution of growth. The “Reply” continues :— 


‘« Bishop Andrew himself perfectly understood the ground of his election, and often 
said he was indebted to his poverty for his promotion. Since the year 1832, the 
anti-slavery sentiment in the Church, as well as in the whole civilized world, has 
constantly and rapidly gained ground; and within the last year or two it has been 
roused to a special and most earnest opposition to the introduction of a slayeholder 
into the episcopal office.”’ 


What do the gentlemen mean when they say there was no difficulty on this sub- 
ject prior to 18442 What was it in 1832? ‘The anti-slavery sentiment in the 
Church,” that is, in their Church, “‘ and in the whole civilized world has been con- 
stantly and rapidly gaining ground, and within the last year or two,” that is prior to 
1844, “‘it has been roused to a special and most earnest opposition.” ‘“ Roused ;” that 
is to say, men have gone about taunting and stimulating each other upon the subject, 
and, as a matter of conscience, to rouse this feeling, and they tell us that their principles 
were settled against this institution, which had been provided for in their constitution, 


192 


so that the anti-slavery sentiment became roused and more decided. And pray, let 
me know when it has become more quiet or more peaceable since 1832, or more 
likely to be assimilated by living in close juxtaposition with the opposite sentiment. 
Yet they tell us that in 1844 there was no real difficulty, and that it was all made by 
these gentlemen declaring that there was a difficulty, thus stimulating their consti- 
tuents to make it one. This, they say, was the case in 1844. We see what it was 
in 1832 :— 


“The subject was discussed everywhere, and the dreaded event (that is, Bishop 
Andrew being a slaveholder in any form) universally deprecated as the most fearful 
calamity that ever threatened the Church.” 


What a state of feeling was this in which the two bodies of this Church were to 
go on together !—two bodies whose particular notions had been provided for in the 
Book of Discipline,—in the North, where emancipation was practicable, the rule was 
absolute that it should be performed; in the South, where it was not practicable, the 
rule was that it need not be complied with. Here you find parties writing a Reply to 
a Protest in 1844, which was to be the manifesto of the majority of that Conference, 
and they tell us that they deprecated this thing as the most fearful calamity which 
ever threatened a Church, and yet they tell us in the Answer that they consider all 
the difficulty arose from the Declaration of these delegates, and they went and stimu- 
. lated the opposition out of which grew the organization of this Church, and it was 
not owing to any preceding difficulties. 

Now turn to the proceedings of the Conference of 1840, on page 56 of the first of 
the Proofs. ‘May 2d;’’ these Conferences all began the first of May. They had 
hardly got seated, before 


“May 2.—O. Scott, of the New-England Conference, presented a petition from 
persons residing in New-York, on the subject of slavery. On the presenting of this 
petition, J. Early moved the appointment of a standing committee on slavery, to 
whom all papers, petitions, and memorials upon that subject shall be referred. 
Adopted. Ordered that the committee consist of twenty-eight members, one from 
each annual conference, and appointed by the respective delegations.” 


Look at that, and see if this Church did not then find that that was a vast and 
terrible difficulty for them to deal with, and that they needed to deal with it not by a 
committee of a few prudent, discreet men, but by a committee which should em- 
brace one member from every one of the conferences of their Church. Then, 
again :— 

“May 8.—E. Dorsey presented the memorial of the stewards and others of West- 
moreland circuit, Baltimore Conference, complaining of the action of the Baltimore 


Annual Conference, in refusing to elect to ordination local preachers, on the single 
ground of their being slaveholders.”’ 


Surely, that was not a fancy; that was a substantial difficulty. Here, in West- 
moreland county, in Virginia, local preachers were refused to be ordained on the 
ground that they were connected with slavery, when the very provision of the Disci- 
pline on that subject left every one free to be elected to any official station in the 
Church, in the Southern country, if emancipation was impracticable, although he was 
a slaveholder. To whom were these preachers to address themselves? To vast 
audiences of slaves and masters—and were they to be addressed by a foreign minis- 
try ; a ministry who held the very institution in the midst of which they were walk- 
ing, as a thing so offensive that it would defile a man and unfit him for the sacred 
garb? That is the state of the thing here indicated ; and if that was the state of the 
thing in a conference so far South as Baltimore, calling itself, I believe, “The 


193 


Breakwater Conference,” what was to be supposed to be the general state of things 
in that Church? The minutes continue :— 


“The memorial was read, and ineffectual efforts made to procure other reference. 
After discussion it was, on motion, referred to a select committee of nine, to consider 
and report thereon. €; 

“May 13.—On motion of J. A. Collins, the report of the committee on the judi- 
ciary, of 1836, in relation to a memorial from Westmoreland and Lancaster circuits, 
Baltimore Conference, was referred to a committee raised on the memorial from 
Westmoreland circuit to this Conference. 


He takes up an old memorial on that subject, left in 1836, and not disturbed from 
that time. They tell us in the Reply, that this anti-slavery feeling in 1832 became 
strong, and it was increasing, not only in the Church, but in the civilized world. In 
1840 you have applications upon the subject, treating it as an existing evil; and you 
find members of the body, when that subject comes to be dealt with, digging up a 
memorial presented in 1836 on the same subject, and referring it to the same commit- 
tee. May 21st, Mr. Bangs, chairman of the Committee on Slavery, presented a 
report, which wasread. O. Scott stated the minority of the committee had a report 
to present ; the report of the majority, and also that of the minority, were laid on the 
table. On motion, the report of the Committee on Slavery was taken up. Then we 
have a very slight circumstance to be sure, but indicating the character of this 
difficulty :— 

“QO. Scott, rising to speak, and intimating that he would probably extend his 


remarks beyond fifteen minutes, it was, on motion, resolved to suspend the rule re- 
stricting a speaker to fifteen minutes, so as to permit brother Scott to proceed at his 


own discretion.”’ 


This, then, was no trifling subject. Brother Scott, I suppose, in ordinary cases, 
dealt with the usual brevity, and fifteen minutes were enough to pour him out ; but 
upon this subject his depth and fulness were entirely inconsistent with the fifteen 
minutes’ rule. 

“ After brother Scott had proceeded some time with his remarks, he gave way for 


a motion to adjourn, which prevailed ; and Conference adjourned, to meet to-morrow 
morning at half-past eight o’clock. 

“ Friday morning, May 22.—Conference proceeded to the consideration of the 
unfinished business of yesterday, it.being the first resolution accompanying the report 
of the Committee on Slavery. The discussion was renewed. 

“On motion, Conference resolved, that when it adjourn, it adjourn to meet this 


afternoon at three o’clock.”’ 


On ordinary occasions, I suppose, these gentlemen took the afternoon for social 
intercourse ; probably dined together; but brother Scott and slavery had now taken 
a degree of interest, which threw these mundane considerations quite into the shade, 
and on they went in the afternoon :— 

* During the. debate, brother Crowder being on the floor, and having spoken fifteen 
minutes, @ motion was made that he have liberty to proceed with and conclude his 
remarks. For this, a substitute was moved in these words, That the rule restricting 
speaking to fifteen minutes be suspended during the discussion of the subject before 
the Conference. Lost.” 

They had the experiment of two absolutions of the rule, and that seemed to satisfy 
them. Then a report was made, which took a course, which is to my mind more dis- 
tinctly indicative of the gravity and difficulty of the subject, than any other thing 
which the report could have contained. Here were two parties, which, it was evident, 
never could be satisfied by a report of the committee which should adopt the senti- 

13 


194 


ments of one or the other; and what did they do? Your Honours will find in this 
Methodist body no small degree of talent, and also some adroitness. They adopted 
a report which effectually declared the principle, that this Baltimore Conference was 
altogether wrong in the Westmoreland matter—that connexion with slavery was no 
objection to official standing in the Methodist Church, in States where emancipation 
was impossible. ‘‘ But how do we know,” said they, “ that it was done on that ground ?”” 
Nobody doubted it; nobody denied it. It was perfectly palpable ; but it was not on 
the minutes. They avoided the difficulty, and satisfied both parties. They refused 
to disturb the action of the Baltimore Conference, because it would infringe on the 
freedom of this conference, in passing upon the character of the ministers proposed 
for ordination, if they compelled them to put down their reasons; and as they could not 
tell by the record that that was their reason, they would not disturb the report. That 
was to satisfy the Baltimore Conference and the North; and then to the South they 
say, if that was the reason, then it was wrong. Exactly telling how the man would 
have swapped, if he had had a horse. 

It was exactly a report indicating a state of things in that Church in 1840, which 
called from their wisest. men, their most peaceful men, measures the most careful, 
adroit, and temporizing, so far as should be consistent with truth, and without a 
violation of distinct and clear duty. These gentlemen found it was a subject they 
could not manage. They had to temporize; they had to satisfy both parties, by 
saying to one, we cannot reverse your judgment, and to the other, if the judgment 
was on the ground you say it was, it was all wrong. Can anything more clearly 
indicate the character of the irreconcilable difficulty ; that showed it was vain to hope 
or expect submission to a decree on that subject in that Conference? I submit that it 
was a most palpable exhibition of the difficulty ; and when this Answer says, that in 
1844 there had been no difficulty before that time which rendered a separation 
likely, or a subject of consideration, it seems tome many things have been overlook- 
ed, and that it has been a thing said in the way of argument in presenting the case, 
rather than asanaverment of the truth. Indeed, it is not averred in the Answer upon 
the knowledge of the gentlemen, but I think there is a qualifying declaration, informed 
or advised by counsel, or something of that sort. I submit it stands proved that the 
difficulty then was great and irreconcilable. 

Upon p. 58 of our first book of Proofs, is the bishops’ address, with which that 
Conference commenced. It appeared that in 1840 this subject had already led to a 
partial dismemberment of the Church. I will read a part of the address :— 


“Tt is justly due to a number of the annual conferences, in which a majority, or a 
very respectable minority of the members are professedly abolitionists, to say that 
they occupy a very different ground, and pursue a very different course, from those 
of their brethren who have adopted ultra principles and measures in this unfortunate, 
and, we think, unprofitable controversy. The result of the action had in such con- 
ferences, on the resolution of the New-England Conference, recommending a very 
important change in our general rule on slavery, is satisfactory proof of this fact, and 
affords us strong and increasing confidence that the unity and peace of the Church 
are not to be materially affected by this exciting subject. Many of the preachers, 
who were favourably disposed to the cause of abolition, when they saw the extent to 
which it was designed to carry these measures, and the inevitable consequences of 
their prosecution, came to a pause, reflected, and declined their co-operation. They 
clearly perceived that the success of the measures would result in the division of the 
Church ; and for such an event they were not prepared.” 


I beg leave to comment upon this. These gentlemen saw the result of the aboli- 
tion measures would be the division of the Church, and for that they were not pre- 
pared. And what do the bishops say these gentlemen did? They exercised for- 


13* 


195 


bearance. If they did not forbear, they saw it would lead to a dissolution of this 
Church. Here is a plain intimation of the danger directly before them, and the 
means of avoiding it, which means peace-loving people had adopted with the view 
of avoiding the danger. These bishops hoped, and spoke from hope, that they would 
be continued, and then the danger of separation might be avoided. But every one 
must see in this address, that if this subject continued to be agitated, the inevitable 
consequence would be a division of the Church. This is an official document, de- 
claring what has since occurred, in terms almost prophetic. If the difficulty existed, 
where is their ‘‘ answer,” in which they say there never was a difficulty justifying a 
contingent separation growing out of it. The bishops, speaking from the hopes of 
good men, go on to say :— 


“They have no disposition to criminate their brethren in the South, who are un- 
avoidably connected with the institution of slavery, or to separate from them, on that 
account. It is believed that men of ardent temperament, whose zeal may have been 
somewhat in advance of their knowledge and discretion, have made such advances in 
the abolition enterprise as to produce a re-action. A few preachers and members, 
disappointed in their expectations, and despairing of the success of their cause in the 
Methodist Church, have withdrawn from our fellowship, and connected themselves 
with associations more congenial with their views and feelings; and others, in similar 
circumstances, may probably follow their example. But we rejoice in believing that 
these secessions will be very limited, and that the great body of Methodists in these 
States will continue as they have been, one and inseparable.” 


In other words, it is now evident these two principles cannot coexist in this Church. 
Either this business of abolition must cease to be agitated and talked of, or there 
must be secession. There has already been the secession of ultra gentlemen from 
the Northern conferences, because they will not go far enough, and everybody sees, if 
this thing continues, separation is inevitable ; and the bishops hoped, with this thing 
laid before the Church, with the pastoral admonition and communication, that quiet 
would ensue. Again they say :— 


“ Rules have been made from time to time, regulating the sale, and purchase, and 
holding of slaves, with reference to the different laws of the States where slavery is 
tolerated ; which, upon the experience of the great difficulty of administering them, 
and the unhappy consequence both to masters and servants, have been as often 
changed or repealed. These important facts, which form prominent features of our 
past history as a Church, may properly lead us to inquire for that course of action in 
the future, which may be best calculated to” preserve the peace and unity of the 
whole body, promote the greatest happiness of the slave-population, and advance 
generally, in the slaveholding community of our country, the humane and hallowing 
influence of our holy religion. We cannot withhold from you at this eventful period, 
the solemn conviction of our minds, that no new ecclesiastical legislation on the sub- 
ject of slavery, at this time, will have a tendency to accomplish these most desirable 
objects. And we are fully persuaded, that, as a body of Christian ministers, we shall 
accomplish the greatest good by directing our individual and united efforts, in the 
spirit of the first teachers of Christianity, to bring both master and servant under 
the sanctifying influence of the principles of that Gospel which teaches the duties of 
every relation, and enforces the faithful discharge of them by the strongest conceiv 
able motives. Do we aim at the amelioration of the condition of the slave? How 
can we so effectually accomplish this, in our calling as ministers of the Gospel of 
Christ, as by employing our influence to bring both him and his master to a saving 
knowledge of the grace of God, and to a practical observance of those relative duties 
so clearly prescribed in the writings of the inspired apostles ?” 


Now, I submit to the good sense and fair judgment of every reader of that address, 
if it was not the action of the nurse stepping about softly in the sick chamber, where 
the patient lay in that state in which noise might destroy him ; and whether the whole 
aspect of it does not import that here was a dangerous crisis in the malady of the 


196 


Church, when agitation would lead to a separation and division, which, say the 
bishops, Northern gentlemen are not now prepared for. Does it show that there was 
no evil on this subject, no danger, no aspect of separation, no difficulties, no differ- 
ences, (in the language of this Answer ;) so that when these gentlemen, in 1844, after 
an agitation unparalleled in its character, and acts of the most wounding style com- 
mitted against the feelings of the Southern delegates, made a declaration that a 
continuance in that state was no longer possible, did they declare some new thing, 
a thing then originating, and which required them to be active in bringing their pro- 
phecy to pass? or were they speaking historically as to matters they had observed 
for a long time, and which then flashed upon them with a light no one could resist. 
T think your Honours will read with advantage the Address to the British Confer- 
ence, and the answer to it. 

These conciliatory measures were adopted in 1844, and yet it will be said that this 
shows there was no danger. What does it show? It shows there is no danger if 
you keep still; your patient may recover if you keep quiet ; but if you fire a cannon 
about him, you may kill him? What was done? What was the history of things 
from 1840 to 18447? I speak quite withm a moderate form of expression, when I say 
that in 1844 the agitation was fiercely renewed, and that agitation had grown from 
the state of things between 1840 and 1844. You will see the beginning of the Con- 
ference of 1844 flooded with petitions on the subject of slavery from Northern confer- 
ences. You will see the “‘ Breakwater Conference” anew standing up to make the 
waves break. The Conference took up the case of Mr. Harding as early as May 4. 
This Mr. Harding, of the Baltimore Conference, had been suspended from his minis- 
terial standing for refusing to manumit certain slaves who came into his possession 
by his marriage. On the 8th May this business was taken up and debated, and 
on the 10th also. On the 11th it was again taken up, and decided ; and they then 
sustained the degradation of a man living in a State where it was shown he 
could not manumit the slave, except by submitting him to be transported out of the 
State by the sheriff, and if the slave had connexions, wife, children, all would have 
to be abandoned. Was this the quiet of the tender friend to a sick patient? Was 
this behaving according to the recommendation of the Conference of 1840? Orwas . 
it not breaking with thunder upon this wished-to-be peaceful body? It seems to me 
that no gentleman of discretion in that Conference, could have looked at that thing, 
and at the historical and prophetic declaration of the bishops in 1840, without seeing 
proof of the now-existing state of things. It seems to me that the knell of this peace 
was then sounded—the division was then declared; and look at the consequences. 
Immediately, under the impulse which a large majority gives—for men acting in 
bodies are acted upon by their sympathies, and, as Lord Chesterfield expressed it of 
the House of Lords, every great assembly is a mob; that is to say, they go more by 
sympathies than by individual wisdom—it produces action in the case of Bishop 
Andrew. I need only refer to that: I do conceive it is a touching history ; no one, 
T think, who ever read the account of ihe proceedings can ever let it be obliterated. 
In the first place a resolution is offered asking him to resign. That would have 
been, to be sure, advisory, but pretty strong advice, like inviting aman to leave your 
room ; you invite him peaceably first, and if he does not go, your servant takes him 
by the coat, and says, ‘That is the way, sir.” But this at first was an invitation. 
Either it was rude, or offensive in some way, or it was insufficient,—I am unable to 
say which,—and then a resolution was presented by Mr. Finley, that he desist from 
his episcopal functions. I wish to read this now, in reference to what is disputed be- 
tween the two parties in 1844, as to whether this is advisory merely, or covertly a 
sentence of degradation. 


197 


‘Whereas the Discipline of our Church forbids the doing anything calculated 
to destroy our itinerant general superintendency, and whereas Bishop Andrew has 
become connected with slavery by marriage and otherwise, and this act having drawn 
after it circumstances which, in the estimation of the General Conference, will greatly 
embarrass the exercise of his office as an itinerant general superintendent, if not in 
some places entirely prevent it ; therefore, 

“ Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that he desist from 
the exercise of this office so long as this impediment remains.” 


It seems to me that any one skilled in ecclesiastical sentences would find here 
every element of a sentence of degradation. It refers first to the Discipline—it for- 
bids so and so. What is the use of the recital, if the gentleman has not done some- 
thing forbidden? ‘Why recite the law to say that it has been kept? It is cited to 
show that it was broken, and that these gentlemen acted under warrant of the law. 
I am at a loss to know what a judicial sentence is, if that was not. It recites what 
the Discipline forbids, and then that Bishop Andrew had become connected with sla- 
very, which drew after it certain consequences. Here is the only thing which is 
different from a judicial sentence: it is a sentence of a bill of attainder; in other 
words, instead of saying this violation has drawn after it consequences which the law 
imputes to crime, it says it draws after it consequences which are adjudged to be in- 
consistent with the social state. You may search the history of bills of attainder in 
England and analyze them, and you will always find some grave misdemeanor which 
has never been precisely defined by the law, but which has satisfied those who sat in 
judgment and passed the bill, that it was a grievous offence, not by reason of violat- ° 
ing some known law, but some great principle which those who sat on it thought 
needed protection, and for that they pass the attainder, forfeit the estate, take the 
life, bring the subject to the block. 

But what did they do here? Did they advise Bishop Andrew to manumit his 
slaves? That would have been absurd. They knew he could not do it. When 
you advise a man, you suppose it is something which he can do. Why did they not 
advise him to manumit his slaves? It would have struck every one as an absurdity. 
Manumit them in Georgia! Every one would have said, it is like asking him to run 
when manacled. They passed a judicial degradation. They said, ‘It is the sense 
of this General Conference that he desist from the exercise of this office.” ‘ That 
he desist !”,—that is not a term of advice. He is not invited to do anything, but it is 
‘the sense,” the judgment, of the Conference “ that he desist.” Is not that a judi- 
cial degradation of this gentleman? What is the office of a bishop? Let us see 
whether this is a degradation or not. ‘‘ He that desireth the office of a bishop, de- 
sireth a good thing.” What is the good thing? Is it to be called a bishop? Is it 
to be printed in the Hymn book and Book of Discipline with no functions? Is it to 
receive $200 a year? Surely not; and last of all in this Connexion, among whom 
we are now walking, self-denying men, living in contented poverty, and in their con- 
tentment being richer than any of the bishops who wear mitres. What is desirable 
in the office of a bishop? It is the duty and functions of the bishop; the opportu- 
nity of glorious labour; the noble duty of supervising the religious instruction and 
conduct of the ministers among whom he walks. ‘These are the things which make 
the office of a bishop desirable. That is the ‘‘ good thing” to be desired. It is the 
carrying out of the great principle, that it is the glory of the labour which is the glory 
of the office ; it 1s not the glory of the title, of wealth, of ease,—it is the glory of the 
functions of the episcopacy which he is exercising, which induce him to accept it, and 
make him honoured. “ From all these things, Bishop Andrew, you must abstain.” 
“ Violated any law?” “Yes, you have violated a law,—not exactly that we can try 
you for ; but you have done that which satisfies us of a violation of our principles of 


193; 


policy, as the high, supreme, sovereign, judicial, and legislative body, for which we 
attaint you.” There it lies. That is the sentence; and when afterwards in the 
Conference somebody, certainly with more kindness of heart than judgment, moved 
a resolution that it should be considered advisory, the good sense of the members re- 
jected it, because it would have been absurd to call it advice. The sense of this 
Conference is that you desist ; the judgment of the Conference is, that in conse- 
quence of a violation of the principle of Discipline, you must desist. Here was an 
action of the most permanent character, bearing upon this question in such a way 
as most effectually to bring into view the prophecy of the bishops in 1840, that a fur- 
ther agitation of this subject would render a separation of that Church unavoidable. 
I cannot forbear calling your attention to the deliberation with which this was done. 
If it had been a transient ebullition, which it might be expected cooler moments would 
have quieted, our learned friends might say there was nothing to be apprehended ; 
but this thing was debated from May 23d to some day in June. In the meantime 
the bishops all came out with some advice. ‘They say, Postpone this subject until 
1848—let time come and heal the agitation and heat upon this subject—let it come 
with its healing, its cooling influence ; and so would have been the advice of every 
man who did not believe the evil incurable. After that was presented, one of the 
bishops, Bishop Hedding, thought, ‘well Iam sure this will do no good,” and re- 
voked his signature. The other bishops, for different reasons, stood by that recom- 
mendation. Now see how deliberate this was. Would it not be a libel upon this 
body to suppose that this indicated a transient feeling, or anything likely to pass away 
between 1844 and 1848? Can anybody say that the Conference was so reckless of 
the safety of the Church that they preferred acting immediately, although it would 
lead to such consequences, rather than to wait till 1848 ? 

I say that by this act the bishop’s itinerancy and episcopacy were plainly destroyed, 
and he was disqualified without conviction of anything. It was a legislative declara- 
tion as to slavery disqualifying every preacher, in Harding’s case, and every bishop, 
in Andrew’s case; so that thereafter in that Southern country no man connected 
with slavery, however involuntarily, could ever be a preacher or a bishop, and for the 
same reason he could hold no official station in that Church. I ask whether that did 
not indicate a foregone state of opinion, which had been previously produced? because 
it is In vain to say that it was all got up by the Norther men at the meeting of that 
Conference. It was the result of previous deliberation, then only ripened and dis- 
covered. It is in vain to say, with such a disqualifying sentence upon all. the 
preachers of this body belonging to the Southern conferences connected with slavery, 
that it was possible for them to go on as co-operating members of a ministry. 

Was there any change to be hoped for on this subject? In 1832, as the Reply to 
the Protest tells us, the anti-slavery feeling had got a great headway and was con- 
stantly increasing. We have seen what it was in 1840. We now see what it was 
in 1844, after an experience of twelve years, resulting in acts of a very extreme 
character. Certainly I speak in moderation when I say these two acts were of an 
extreme character. Was there any hope that gentlemen who were adverse to slavery 
would give up their opinions? It would be contrary to experience to expect that 
that which had gone on increasing would not continue to increase, but would, be- 
cause it had increased, diminish. How was it with the South? Was this the way 
to conciliate them? ‘The bishops, in 1840, had told the Conference ‘ Keep quiet,” 
and in the very face of that they go on with the most serious acts, wounding to every- 
thing the Southern people considered distinctive of themselves. Is that a thing 
which would conduce to peace on their part? Is that a measure likely to result in a 
better state of the Church? 


199 


This Declaration was handed in on the 5th of June. It says, (p. 97,)— 


“The delegates of the conferences in the slaveholding States take leave to declare 
to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, that the continued 
agitation of the subject of slavery and abolition in a portion of the Church; the fre- 
quent action on that subject in the General Conference; and especially the extra- 
judicial proceedings against Bishop Andrew, which resulted, on Saturday last, in the 
virtual suspension of him from his office as superintendent, must produce a state of 
things in the South which renders a continuance of the jurisdiction of this General 
Conference over these conferences inconsistent with the success of the ministry in 
the slaveholding States.” ' 


I beg your attention to the last four lines of this. They speak of causes which are 
past, and the effect that they must produce. They speak of effects which are cer- 
tain. ‘They do not say ‘‘ we suppose they will;” they speak with certainty of the fact, 
and of consequences within their own knowledge; and then they declare what those 
consequences are ‘which render,”’ not ‘‘ which will render,’’ or “ are likely to ren- 
der,” but which render the separation necessary. This was a declaration of sensible 
men,—a declaration, I think, in the very spirit of peace to that Church,—because at 
every Conference there would have been trials, degradations, and elections of bishops 
more and more free from any connexion with slavery, and therefore more and 
more foreign from the people among whom they were to minister. That Declaration 
was signed by all the delegates from the Southern conferences. It was referred to 
a committee. Then, , 


“J. B. McFerrin offered the following resolution :— 

“«¢ Resolved, That the committee appointed to take into consideration the commu- 
nication of the delegates from the Southern conferences be instructed, provided they 
cannot in their judgment devise a plan for an amicable adjustment of the difficulties 
now existing in the Church, on the subject of slavery, to devise, if possible, a consti- 
tutional plan for a mutual and friendly division of the Church.’ 

“'T’. Crowder’s motion to strike out the word ‘constitutional,’ did not prevail, and 
the resolution was adopted.” 


This shows how distinctly the question of constitutionality was brought in. The 
committee of nine was composed of five of those who voted for the sentence, and four 
who voted against the sentence of Bishop Andrew. Then came the Protest and the 
Reply to it, both of which I ask your Honours to read, not as detailing facts, because 
these gentlemen, no doubt, took different views of facts and especially of inferences, 
but with a view of looking at the character of the principles detailed in both these 
papers, and to ask yourselves whether, supposing them both to be sincere, they did 
not declare principles on each side, under the same Discipline, which prevented this 
Church from ever being anything but nominally in unity. The moment those papers 
came in,—one the manifesto on the one side, and the other on the other,—there 
was as entire a separation in fact as afterwards was accomplished in form. I do not 
intend to read either of these papers, but I beg very briefly to say what princi- 
ples they avowed. 

On the part of the Southern gentlemen, the Protest avowed that the Conference 
adopted this sentence as degrading Bishop Andrew without a trial. On the other 
side they declared such things might be done, and it was not degrading the bishop ; 
that they had a right to do it without trying him. There was a principle of Church 
government involved, vital to the episcopacy of that Church. One side say, “ You 
do, in effect, punish this bishop by bill of attainder.’’ The other side say, ‘‘ We have 
a right to do that with the bishop, for this cause or a similar one.’’ Here was a di- 
vision on the subject of episcopacy in the Church government, which would seem to 
make it perfectly idle for them to expect to go on together as a Church, each main- 


200 


taining their sentiments. Was there any hope of these gentlemen changing? I am 
at a loss to see in anything that afterwards took place the slightest indication Bat 
anything would have produced an amelioration. 

The Protest avers that this sentence rested on a mere aversion to slavery, and 
that it thus announced a purpose destructive to the unity of the Church, and adopted 
the anti-slavery principle, and that so a division was already made. Now, my learned 
friends set up in their Answer, that the division was not made until after this Protest ; 
and the gentlemen who made it, endeavoured to make good their prediction. 

What do they say in the Reply? They set up that no slaveholder ever had been 
a bishop. The allegation of the Protest is, You adopt the anti-slavery principle, and 
the degradation of the bishop, on the mere ground of aversion to slavery. ‘They set 
up that no slaveholder ever was a bishop intentionally in this Church. Here is a 
principle broadly declared and united in on both sides,—both uniting in the fact, the 
only difference being one saying that it was, and the other, that it was not right. 

The Reply declares that his acting as bishop would be injurious to the North, and 
they say he could have no itinerancy at the North; in that way averring that the 
Northern sentiment should control in this Church. Does any one suppose that was 
a thing to enable this Church to stand as an undivided Church? They then aver 
another thing, in which it seems to me they had the letter though not the spirit of 
their Discipline with them, that the General Conference was not limited in its powers 
as to slavery. The Protest had averred that there had been a compromise on the 
subject of slavery, and their Discipline showed it. On the other side, they averred 
there was no compromise upon the subject which bound the General Conference. 
Tt seems to me that though it did not bind them in letter, yet it was one of those 
things upon which both parties had so acted that it was in honour as valid and com- 
plete a compromise as anything ever done. It was very much like those things 
which have taken place in this country called “‘ compromises.’’ You cannot limit 
Congress ; but when large sections of country are agitated, and measures adopted 
which are on both sides considered as concessions for peace’ sake and compromises, 
they are binding in honour and conscience, although not binding in law and by legal 
technicality. That was exactly the state of things here ; but the gentlemen who had 
the majority in the Conference of 1844, very clearly declared ‘‘ We will listen to no 
considerations in that spirit ; we will consider ourselves entirely free on that subject, 
to go to the utmost limits of the sovereign power of the General Conference.” 

Again: this reply clearly alleges that the Southern Churches and conferences 
were bound to receive bishops who held anti-slavery sentiments. So they were ; 
but how was it to conduce to the peace of the Church that all the bishops who were 
sent to the South should go without the slighest sympathy which the relation of 
master and slaves in any of its forms could ever give rise to? Was that an epis- 
copacy? Wasthat a ministry which in a Protestant country ever would be received 
and listened to, or permitted to exercise its functions? After this Protest and Reply, 
could this body continue together? and is it not evident that unless the Methodist 
Church could extinguish slavery, it must leave the South? On that subject, it seems 
to me, it is too much to say, that after what had taken place during this series of 
years, and had thus ripened and discovered itself in 1840, and more especially in 1844, 
the Declaration was the cause of the disruption. You might as well say that the 
doctor who tells you that you have a fever, gave you the fever. I will simply refer 
your Honours to the result on the queries of the bishops as to how they were to 
treat Bishop Andrew. Their inquiry was made on the sixth of June; it will be 
found on p. 124 of book No. 1. As I have abbreviated it, it comes to this. He is 
to do nothing ; but his name is to be published in the Hymn Books and all the pub- 


201 


lications of the Society. If I wanted to make degradation most complete, that is 
the course I should have taken, only adding to it, if I could, the publication of a 
Methodist Spelling Book, and having his name printed in connexion with the names 
of the other bishops, whom they were in the habit of seeing. 

I have by anticipation spoken of the report of the committee of nine, on the 8th 
of June, 1844. This committee of nine were originally to considet whether they 
could devise a plan for amicable adjustment, and if they could not, then they were 
to devise a plan for separation. The committee reported a plan for separation, turn- 
ing it upon this Declaration, which had been made, being verified by the delegates 
from the Southern conferences. The delegates from the Southern conferences, 
under the lead of Mr. Paine, who was afterwards a bishop in the Southern Church, 
moved to transfer that burden from themselves to the Southern conferences. That 
was agreed to. What was meant by leaving it to the Southern conferences if 
they should find a separation necessary? When were they to make the search? 
What experiment were they to try inthe South? The gentlemen who made the 
Declaration knew the sentiments of their constituents. What was meant by this 
finding? It meant what a jury does when it finds. They were to sit down and 
consider the subject, and if in their conclusions they found that this was so, then they 
were authorized to make a separate organization. ‘That is all I have to say upon 
that part of the subject. 

This was a plain and distinct authority to these Southern conferences to organize 
themselves into a new Church. This was in no sense conditional. In the first place, 
it was not conditional upon any future event which was to determine the conferences. 
It was to be left to their sober judgment to pass upon this question, of whether a 
division was necessary to the peace of the Church ; and there is not a word of con- 
dition in regard to the separation, except “if they should find it necessary.”” In the 
next place, no new event was expected to occur. Who was to tell what was to 
satisfy these gentlemen? Suppose we adopt the conclusion that they were to look 
for something else to happen. The Southern conferences met in September, 1844. 
What were they todo? Why, it was to be talked about among the people, and the 
general sense of the people was to be ascertained on that subject. But did the 
General Conference of 1844 appoint any judge to determine whether these gentle- 
men had exercised the power? That was left to these conferences themselves. 
If their judgments were satisfied, either by what they knew had happened or would 
happen, that it was necessary, they were to organize a separate Church. What was 
done? This thing was committed to the conferences by the delegates; they were 
invited to judge of it. It is complaied of, that they advised a separation. Why, 
they had a perfect right to do so. If in conscience they believed it necessary to the 
peace of the Church, it was their duty to have done so. The resolutions adopted 
by the conferences show that it was a matter of discussion; they passed upon 
this subject, and their judgment was the judgment intended to be conclusive on 
the Church. Their judgment was to be the concluding judgment on the subject, 
because there is no pretence that this was tobe left to another General Confer- 
ence, and because they had appointed commissioners to carry this division into 
effect ; showing that they had not anticipated an act of another Conference. If 
they did not suppose that this was to have been done under that act of the Confer- 
ence, then they authorized these gentlemen to pass judgment and organize a 
Church, and when it was done, unless it should suit the General Conference, which 
was to meet in 1848, that organization made them seceders. Why, by the very na- 
ture of the power, by the very invitation to judge on this subject, their judgment was 
made the concluding and final judgment which was to protect those who acted under it. 


202 


Again: it is alleged, and perhaps it will be argued—it is set up in the Answer— 
that it was all conditional upon the vote on the change of the restrictive rule. Now, 
that cannot be so, for one very plain reason. ‘The change of the restrictive rule was 
to authorize the turning over of the property to commissioners from the “ Church, 
South.” It imported that there should be a “‘ Church, South,” before any necessity 
could arise of voting upon a restrictive rule. Unless the Church, South, was organ- 
ized, or unless it was certain that it would be organized, the proposition to change 
the restrictive rule was a mere hypothetical sort of thing. It seems to me that the 
changing of the restrictive rule was made a condition to only one thing, and that 
thing w.” the agents turning over a part of the funds without the decree of a court 
of justice, or an act of the General Conference, to the commissioners of the Church, 
South. 

Moreover, it has been suggested, in some papers which have gone forth on this 
subject from our friends on the other side, that all this was a plan to stand and be 
adopted together. There is nothing of that kind in the Plan. What had taken place 
with regard to Canada shows that it was perfectly competent, and according to the 
usage of this Church, to allow of a separation, and to leave the question of property 
to be afterwards adjusted according to equity. There is nothing in that Plan which 
makes any part of it conditional, one upon the other, except only that which relates 
to a change of the restrictive article ; and that is a condition only to the action of the 
agents, and the action of the agents as to turning over the capital. 

It is also said that it was conditional upon our conforming to the limits; and they 
assert, in some of their papers, two violations, as they say, where Southern preachers 
went into bordering Northern conferences and established preaching houses. That 
cannot be a condition, because the effect of it would be to make the rights of every 
one of the Southern conferences depend upon the acts of that conference which hap- 
pened to be delinquent. That was the provision of a treaty, and not a condition. 
This was a covenant, and the violators of it stood as the violators of a covenant he- 
tween two contracting parties. It might be said it was a shame, if the fact were 
such ; and I do not intend to discuss that, because I consider it utterly immaterial. 
Who gave that border conference that did this, the right to jeopardize the interests © 
of thirteen or fourteen other conferences growing out of this Plan of Separation ? 
Never can this be considered a condition. How long was such a condition to con- 
tinue? If it was a condition at all, it must be of perpetual obligation. Is it a per- 
petual condition, so that at any distance of time, after the organization and establish- 
ment of the Southern Church, if a conference of that Church should violate it, every- 
thing would be annulled which preceded that, and things would be precisely in the 
same condition as they were before the adoption of the Plan of Separation? That is 
the effect of holding it to be a condition. It cannot be so. I speak this, I am sure, 
with the concurrence of the enlightened judgment of the Court. 

Then, on the subject of the votes on the change of the restrictive article, it seems 
that the necessary number of votes were not given to authorize the change. _I chiefly 
notice this, because your Honours will sce that it shows no lack of strength in our 
cause, On the journals of the Conference of the Northern Church of 1848, page 177, 
I find this report :—The votes were, for altering the sixth rule, from the South 971, 
and from the North 1,164, in all 2,135; and against it, from the South 3, from the 
North 1,067, in all 1,070. The three-fourths required was 2,404; so that even at 
the North there was a majority of about 100 for it. But inasmuch as it required 
three-fourths, the whole number should have been 2,404; there were 269 votes lack- 
ing, out of over 3,000 cast. We have, however, this fact evinced by this, as to the 
equity of the claim, that the Northern gentlemen themselves, by avery decisive majority, 


205 


certainly a working majority under any other circumstances, were in favour of ac- 
knowledging this right in the South to part of the funds. 

Now, I submit that after what took place, there was no secession ; that those who 
organized and belonged to the Southern Church did it without blame ; that they are in 
every sense preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in good standing, belong- 
ing to yearly conferences, adopting Methodist doctrines and Methodist discipline. 
Then, I ask, suppose there be no alteration in the sixth restrictive article, what is the 
effect of it upon the rights of the superannuated and worn-out preachers of the South- 
ern conferences? 'To determine this, we must look to the article. And here I wish 
to say, that if we are not seceders, if we are as truly the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in our part, as they are in their part of the country, then I wish to know upon what 
principle it can be held that it would be a violation of trust in the Book Concern, or 
its agents, to pay over to our preachers their share of the produce? The article reads 
(page 28) :— 


“They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book Concern, nor of the Char- 
tered Fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of the travelling, supernume- 
rary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children.”’ 


I submit that even if we were a secession, even if we have ceased to be in the 
Methodist Connexion in the sense of the Methodist Discipline, whether, after 
all that has taken place, a change of the restrictive article was required to entitle our 
beneficiaries to this fund. I ask now whether, supposing the book agents had paid 
out this fund to the Southern beneficiaries, to the widows and children (takmg them 
first as the non-combatants in this matter).their share, would any court in the world 
say that was a breach of trust in these book agents? Upon what principle could 
they say so? Are these widows and children not in good standing in that Church ! 
The Northern delegates had said to our people, ‘‘ You may join this Southern organi- 
zation without blame.” Then are we not in good standing? We have done an act 
which you say we might do, and do without blame. If we have done it without 
blame in the sense of the Discipline, without blame in the very view of an alteration 
of the restrictive article, how are we to be excluded from our share? Although there 
may be a difficulty, rendering it necessary for these agents, when they are asked to 
part with the capital of the fund itself, to require the sanction of a court, I can see, I 
confess, no difficulty as to their being bound to make a distribution among the benefi- 
ciaries belonging to the Southern conferences under this article, just as well without 
as with an alteration of it. 

Moreover, if it was intended that the whole of our rights should depend upon the 
alteration of the restrictive article in this respect, then, beyond all doubt, it would 
have been arranged, so that the alteration should have covered this ease and no other. 
Then, beyond all doubt, the change in the restrictive article would have proposed so 
as to have made the article read, “ They shall not apply the produce of the Book Con- 
cern to any other purpose, than the benefit of travelling, &c., preachers in our Connex- 
ion or in any Connexion authorized by us; but the alteration recommended is to 
add, ‘‘and to such other purposes as may be determined upon by the votes of two- 
thirds of the members of the General Conference.” I submit, and on this subject I 
need not enlarge, for the considerations are very plain, that if we are not seceders, 
then all these beneficiaries are entitled, even though these book agents should retain 
possession of the fund, and they must distribute it through these annual conferences. 

This being a subject of equitable administration, I have one other considera- 
tion to submit on this part of it. Here is in equity an estoppel to the elaim, 
that we are seceders. There is in equity an estoppel to the claim, that we, 


204 


who formed this organization under the invitation of the Plan of Separation, by the 
co-operation of the bishops, and without an intimation from any authorized body of 
this Church that we were doing wrong, are seceders. We organized ourselves into 
a separate Church, on the invitation of the General Conference ; and it seems to me 
against all equity, that they should be permitted to set up that act as the forfeiting 
act. But forfeiture may be waved; and it may be waved by acts before as well 
as after. If I grant permission to a man to do that which would otherwise be a for- 
feiture, it ceases to be a forfeiture. And after a forfeiture I might do that which 
sanctions it, and it waves the forfeiture. The law lays hold of everything to defeat 
a forfeiture. | What our learned friends claim in this, is simply a forfeiture, acknow- 
ledging our prior right, and acknowledging that it is a penalty beyond the damage, 
claiming much punishment for little transgression. Now I submit, that the Confer- 
ence of 1844, has given such a consent as prevents this being a forfeiture, unless 
your Honours shall say it was one of those plain and direct breaches of trust which 
come under a very different category. I therefore say, according to my seventh 
point, that the beneficiaries of the fund in question, who belonged to the Southern 
conferences, did not by the new organization lose any rights, nor were they disquali- 
fied in any manner from claiming their share of the fund; and such claim is appro- 
priately made through the General Conference, South, which succeeds to the place 
of the prior General Conference of the whole Church. Our claim to a share of the 
profits stands on the fact of our not being seceders. Even if the organization of the 
South should be considered defective, it would not make us seceders in the sense 
of forfeiting. Upon an idea which I have presented to your Honours, that this 
General Conference had the power to consent, and did consent, to the organization 
of a new body, a new General Conference, then, without going to the powers of 
another General Conference, we have a right to administer that part of the fund 
which properly belongs to our beneficiaries, in the same sense, and with the same 
right, that the General Conference of the whole Church had over the general fund 
when the Church remained undivided. We succeed to our share of the sovereignty 
—to the sovereignty in our district. This fund is to be administered through the 
annual conferences, and they are subordinate to the General Conference of the 
Church, South ; and the General Conference of that Church has the same right to 
appoint a book agent to carry out their administration, that the General Conference 
of the whole Church had when the Church was undivided; or, as the General Con- 
ference of the Northern Church has to the fund in their hands. I submit, that if my 
reasoning has been correct on the subject of a division of the Church, that neces- 
sarily follows. 

There is no difficulty of form in any part of this case. If there is any difficulty it 
is upon the substance ; and the substance is, Have our beneficiaries forfeited? If 
not, they are entitled, either through their conferences or an individual, to be paid 
their share of the profits; and if the Southern Church has been organized according 
to the doctrine and discipline of the Methodist Church, then we have a right to have 
that fund appropriated by new trustees. Therefore, in conclusion, I say, that an ac- 
count should be ordered of the proportions of the profits of the Book Concern, 
according to the numbers on the minutes of 1844, and at the same ratio of the 
profits since. ‘That is, according to the “Plan of Separation.” Also, the capital 
of the fund should be decreed to be divided in the same way, and paid over to the 
commissioners, South, as new trustees, or to proper trustees to be appointed by the 
Court. The profits of the past are to be subject to distribution, according to the 
directions of the General Conference, South, whether the fund remain with the pre- 
sent trustees or be paid over to the new trustees. 


205 


I have not thought it necessary, and it certainly is not necessary that I should go 
over the steps that led to the organization of the new Church. I believe there can 
be no objection to them as a matter of form. I therefore leave this matter in the 
judgment of the Court. 

If your Honours please, the attention with which we have been favoured by the Court 
in this cause, leaves us nothing to fear as to the calmness and care with which its 
judgment will be formed. We have argued it at great length, and we thank your 
Honours for the indulgence extended to us. But we have felt, and no doubt it has 
been a common feeling among us, that no cause, probably, with which any of us 
have ever been concerned is fraught with greater consequences, or the subject 
of more intense solicitude than the present. It involves the feelings and the in- 
terests of millions. It touches a question of the gravest consequence to the well- 
being of this religious community. No political question, nothing that has ever 
presented itself on this subject, touches in any degree interests so great, or men so 
influential. We know that it will be disposed of according to its merits. We, 
on our part, have studiously intended to avoid, however earnest we may have been in 
advocating our views on this subject, anything that should be offensive to our friends 
on the other side, or which should tend, in any degree, to irritate the wound in this 
body. On the part of the gentlemen here, I believe, they are our friends, for the 
Northern majority, although not amounting to sufficient to warrant this distribution 
of the funds by the agents themselves, is a majority of our friends. "What we have 
spoken in earnestness, we trust we have guarded so as to give no personal offence, 
and not tend to aggravate any breach. We trust that the full discussion which this 
matter will receive on the part of our friends on the other side, as well as ourselves, 
may so enlighten this Methodist community, that it is to be hoped, whatever judg- 
ment your Honours may form on the subject, the principles of equity and of right 
which seem to us, and, I think, seem to every one, to be those principles of equity 
and right which lie on the surface, will be most willingly adopted; and that this 
great controversy, under the enlightened judgment of the Court, may have its final 
end. 


Juper Nixson,—Mr. Ewing, you had, perhaps, better put in your proofs now. 
Mr. Ewine,—Mr. Fancher will read our evidence in a few minutes. 


Mr. Lorp,—If your Honours please, there is one authority which, in the absence 
of Mr. Johnson, { had forgot to quote. I intended to refer the Court to the reasoning of 
the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, which passed upon this very subject, when a con- 
troversy arose in relation to some of the preaching-houses. It was the case of Arme 
strong vs. Gibson. It has been published in pamphlet form. 


Mr. Ewrne,—I think it has also been published in 9th Ben. Monroe. 
Mr. Lorp,—The Court in that case decided. 

Juper Nretson,—When was that ? 

Mr. Jounson,—Since the separation. 

Jupcr Nretson,—Since 1845 2 


Mr. Jounson,—Yes, sir. 


206 


Mr. Lorp then read the following note of the case referred to, from a pamphlet 
published by Mr. Bascom and others, on the subject of this controversy :— 


“ Extracts from the decision of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in the celebrated 
Maysville case, in which opinion the whole ground of controversy between the 
North and the South of the Methodist Episcopal Church, affecting the most im- 
portant rights of the parties, is subjected to elaborate and careful examination by 
the distinguished jurists composing the Court :— 


‘The General Conference of 1844 having adopted measures which, by many 
Southern delegates, were deemed injurious to the rights, and character, and useful- 
ness of the Southern ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, a Declaration, 
signed by the Southern delegates, and stating their apprehension of the necessity of 
a separation, was presented to the General Conference, which thereupon passed a 
set of resolutions providing for the manner and consequences of the anticipated sepa- 
ration, should it be found necessary, and authorizing, in that event, a distinct 
Southern organization. 

‘Under the sanction of these resolutions, a convention of delegates from fifteen 
Southern conferences assembled in 1845, renounced by solemn act their connexion 
with the pre-existing organization and the jurisdiction of the General Conference as 
then constituted, and, retaining the same faith and doctrine, the same rules and disci- 
pline, and the same form of constitution and government, established for themselves 
a new and independent organization, under the name of ‘the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South.’ 

** We are called on to apply to the consequences of a catastrophe which, if it had 
not occurred when and as it did, must at some time have happened, the provisions 
of a deed which, having been made when the Church was united and division not 
contemplated, refers, as might be expected, to the existing name, and organs, and 
action of a united Church. The one united Methodist Episcopal Church, referred to 
in the deed, and extending its name and authority to the utmost limits of the United 
States, having ceased to exist, by division into two Churches of distinct territorial 
jurisdiction, there is, in fact, no such Church as is contemplated in the deed ; and, 
therefore, no General Conference of such a Church, no ministers and preachers of 
such a Church, no members of such a Church. 

“‘ Does the fact that there still remains a portion, whether small or large, of the 
original body, under the original name of the whole, invalidate the separation, or the 
rights of the separating portion? Could the remaining portion of the original body 
re-assert, in the name of the whole, the jurisdiction which had been renounced by the 
whole, or revoke the assent which the whole body had once given to the indepen- 
dence of the separating portion? Certainly, if the whole body had power, by assent 
and co-operation, to legalize the separation and its independence of a part of itself, 
the remaining portion of the original body, though retaining the original name of the 
whole, would have no power, after such assent had been given and acted on, to undo, 
by its own mere will, what the entire body had authorized. Whatever else may be 
implied from the identity of name, it cannot give to the present Methodist Episcopal 
Church a jurisdiction which the original Church had alienated. 

‘« But it seems to us too evident to require illustration, that the rights and jurisdic- 
tion of the Southern Church, and the rights of its members, are precisely the same 
within its. own organization, as if the present Methodist Episcopal Church were 
called the Methodist Episcopal Church, North ; that if the Southern organization 
has the sanction of the original Church, it can suffer no disparagement from having 
been the separating portion, but its independence and jurisdiction are complete ; and 
that, to the extent of its jurisdiction, it stands in the place of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, and is to be so regarded, as well in giving construction and application 
to these deeds, as in determining the rights and duties of its members. 

“That a Church organization, a self-created body, subject, so far as its own con- 
stitution and organization are concerned, to no superior will, cannot, by its own 
assent, authorize and legalize its own dismemberment, is a proposition contradicted 
by reason and analogy. ‘That such a measure is inconsistent with the motives and 
ends of its institution, is no more true with regard to such a body, than with regard 
to other associations, private or national. Even in the case of states and empires, 
the unauthorized separation of a part, though originally illegal, and subjecting the 


207 


separatists to reclamation and punishment by the remaining government, is legalized 
by its subsequent assent, with the effect of establishing, in the separating portion, all 
the rights of independence and self-government. 

“Tt does not admit of question that such a power belonged to the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, and that prima facie the General Conference, the supreme active 
organ of its government, clothed with powers of legislation almost unlimited, and 
having alone, in case of unlawful secession, the right of recognition or reclamation, 
might effectually exercise the power in advance. Indeed, the history of the Church 
shows that many years since, the General Conference, without reference to its con- 
stituents, assented to the separation and independence of the Canada Conference, 
then forming an integral portion of the general organization, and having, or entitled 
to have, its delegates in the General Conference itself. And although there seems 
to have been some doubt on the question of power, we do not perceive that the 
grounds of that doubt bring in question the power of the General Conference, any 
more than that of the Church at large, which is unquestionable. The measure, 
however, was adopted, and no doubt has been since entertained of the lawful inde- 
pendence of the Canada Conference. 

‘“‘ We think it must be conceded that, in the absence of express provision to the 
contrary, the General Conference has the right, on its own judgment of the necessity 
of the case, to assent to, and thus to legalize the separation of a part of the 
Church. 

“The evidences in favour of the validity of the act of the General Conference now 
in question are so strong, as almost to preclude the possibility of a conclusive de- 
monstration against it, and certainly too strong to be overthrown by any doubtful 
construction. 

“Tf the question of power were doubtful, we should be bound to regard the act 
of the General Conference as the act of the Church, and therefore as effectual. 

“ The resolutions, constituting the Plan of Separation, do not expel any individual 
from the society of which he was a member, nor deprive him of any privilege of 
property or worship pertaining to that society. But as they propose and provide 
for a complete separation, according to the organic or territorial divisions of the 
Church, they necessarily involve a partition of the governing power between two 
jurisdictions, each possessing, within its territorial limits, the same authority and 
power as had previously belonged to the whole Church. 

“To say that the Church could not be legally or rightfully divided, according to 
its organic or territorial parts, without the unanimous consent of all the members 
of the entire Church, or even of all the members of the part proposed to be sepa- 
rated, would be to deny the power of division by any mode of action, since it would 
subject it to an impossible condition. 

“And although one or more annual conferences might be incompetent, by their 
separate action, against the consent of the General Conference, to bind to an inde- 
pendent organization the local societies connected with them, we are satisfied that 
the joint and co-operative action of the General Conference and the several annua! 
conferences concerned, was fully competent to determine the question, and fix the 
limits, of separation, and to establish, over the several societies within whose limits, 
the jurisdiction of the new organization. 

“Tn determining upon the legality of the actual state of things consequent upon 
a great movement of this character, every part of the proceeding should be liberally 
construed, to effectuate the apparent and reasonable intention of the parties ; and there 
is no room for technicality. Then it is apparent upon the face of the resolutions, 
that there is but one condition upon which the separation and the sanction of the 
General Conference are to depend, which is, that the annual conferences in the 
slaveholding States should find it necessary to erect an independent ecclesiastical 
Connexion, &c. The distribution of the Book Concern and Chartered Fund is obvi- 
ously intended to be a consequence of the separation, and not a condition on which 
it is to depend. And the reference to the several annual conferences for a modi- 
fication of the restrictive rule, was evidently for the purpose of authorizing the 
intended distribution, and not of authorizing the separation. The slaveholding 
conferences, referred to in the first resolution, are such as were situated wholly in 
the slaveholding States. And the delegates from all these conferences assembled 
in convention, having declared the necessity of separation, and erected an inde- 
pendent ecclesiastical Connexion, the prescribed condition has been complied with. 


208 


« As to the actual necessity for separation, that is, the existence of such a state of 
things as justified it, or rendered it proper, this, if it could ever have been a judicial 
question, is no longer so. It has been decided by the concurring judgment of the 
General Conference and the Southern or slaveholding conferences, to which it was 
referred, and by the fact itself of an actual separation by agreement between the 
whole and the separating part, which is presumptively the strongest evidence of a 
high expediency, amounting to necessity. 

‘“‘ But the separation having, as we have seen, been effected by competent powers 
in the Church, and under the condition and in pursuance of the Plan prescribed by 
the General Conference, its legality, in view of the civil tribunal, can be in no degree 
dependent upon the sufficiency in point of discretion or policy of the causes which 
led to it. It is sufficient that the Church, through its competent agents, has author- 
ized the separate organization and independent self-government of the Southern con- 
ferences, and that they have so acted under the authority, as to clothe their movement 
with the sanction of the Church. This being so, the Southern Church stands not as 
a seceding or schismatic body, breaking off violently or illegally from the original 
Church, and carrying with it such members and such rights only as it may succeed 
in abstracting from the other, but as a lawful ecclesiastical body, erected by the au- 
thority of the entire Church, with plenary jurisdiction over a designated portion of 
the original association, recognised by that Church as its proper successor and repre- 
sentative within its limits, commended as such to the confidence and obedience of all 
the members within those limits, and declared to be worthy of occupying towards 
them the place of the original Methodist Episcopal Church, and of taking its name. 
Such, though not the express language, is the plain and necessary import of the reso- 
lutions, in authorizing the formation of a Southern ecclesiastical Connexion or Church, 
and prescribing a rule for ascertaining its limits ; in leaving to the unmolested care 
of the anticipated Southern Church all the societies, &c., within its limits, and stipu- 
lating that within those limits no new ones shall be organized under the authority of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church; in declaring that ministers may take their place in 
the Southern Connexion without blame ; and in denominating the Southern Church 
‘the Church, South.’ The provision made for a ratable distribution of the funds of . 
the Church, and the relinquishment of all claim to the preaching-houses, &c., within 
the limits of the Southern Connexion, are of a similar character with the other features 
of the resolutions, and attest the equity and magnanimity of the late General Con- 
ference. That body had, however, no proprietary interest in the preaching-houses, 
and could only transfer its jurisdiction over them, which is done by the resolutions 
and the proceedings under them. 

“The result is, that the original Methodist Episcopal Church has been authorita- 
tively divided into two Methodist Episcopal Churches, the one North and the other 
South of a common boundary line, which, according to the Plan of Separation, limits 
the extent and jurisdiction of each; that each, within its own limits, is the lawful 
successor and representative of the original Church, possessing all its jurisdiction, 
and entitled to its name; that neither has any more right to exceed those limits 
than the other; that the Southern Church, retaining the same faith, doctrine, and 
discipline, and assuming the same organization and name as the original Church, is 
not only a Methodist Episcopal Church, but is in fact, to the South, the Methodist 
Episcopal Church as truly as the other Church is so to the North, and is not the less 
so by the addition of the word South, to designate its locality. The other Church 
being, by the plan of division, as certainly confined to the North as this Church is to the 
South of the dividing line, is as truly the Church, North, as the Southern Church is the 
Church, South. The difference in name makes no difference in character or authority. 

“That the resolutions constituting the law of the case, intended that the minority 
should acquiesce in the determination of the majority, is manifest, not only from their 
general tenor and objects, but more especially from the failure to make any provision 
for a seceding minority, and from the express stipulation that the Church to which 
such minority might desire to adhere, shall organize no societies within the limits of 
the other. 

‘Tt is sufficient for the purposes of this case to have ascertained, that the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, South, has within the limits of its organization, as fixed under 
the rule prescribed by the General Conference of the original Church, all the rights 
~ jurisdiction of that Church, to the exclusion of the present Methodist Episcopal 

urch. 


209 


“Tt has already been sufficiently shown, that the addition of the word ‘ South’ to 
the name of the Southern Methodist Episcopal Church, cannot affect the rights either 
of that Church or of its members ; and that the members of a local society, entitled 
to the use of local property under this or other similar deed, before the division, do 
not lose their right by adhering to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, under the 
resolutions of the General Conference of 1844.” 


Mr. Reverpy Jounson,—May it please your Honours, before the counsel for 
the respondents proceed with the reading of their proofs, I rise for the purpose of 
stating, that upon the main question of the case—the question of the power of the 
General Conference to authorize a separation under the authority of the Constitution 
of that Conference—I shall rely upon the case of the American Insurance Company 
vs. Canter, in 1 Peter’s, beginning at page 511. That part of the opinion on which I 
shall more particularly rely, will be found as given by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, 
on page 542. The language of the Constitution of the Church, as relates to the 
powers of the Conference, is to be found on page 27 of Proofs, No. 1, and is in these 
words :— 


“The General Conference shall have full powers to make rules and regulations 
for our Church, under the following limitations and restrictions.” 


The power thus subject to restrictions is a power to make rules and regulations for 
the Church, or, in the language of the clause, “for our Church.” The language in 
the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, upon 
which the case in 1 Peter’s turns, is, ‘‘ Congress shall have power to dispose of, and 
make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property be- 
longing to the United States.”” This clause, so far as it is applicable to the power 
of Congress over the territories of the United States, gives Congress power to make 
all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United 
States. The power of the General Conference is to make rules and regulations for 
the Church. The counsel upon the other side will at once see the purpose for which 
I cite the case. The question in that case was, whence did the government of the 
United States derive the authority, from time to time, to govern the territories by in- 
volving them all under one form of government, by dividing them from time to time, 
as in the judgment of Congress a division might be thought expedient, or by admit- 
ting them afterwards into the Union as States, under the authority of another clause 
of the Constitution? The Chief Justice, in giving the opinion, says, that as they had 
authority to declare war under another clause, and under another clause they had the 
authority to acquire by treaty, the acquisition whether acquired by force or by treaty, 
would necessarily carry with it the authority to govern, and it was unnecessary to 
dispute as to the extent of the authority to govern, because it was to be found in the 
very words of the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which con- 
veyed to Congress the authority to make needful rules and regulations for the terri- 
tory of the United States. If, therefore, under that power Congress may to-day 
establish one territorial government, and may to-morrow divide it, if they may keep 
that territorial government in existence until such time as they think proper to admit 
its inhabitants into the Union as a State, I contend that the General Conference, as a 
government for the Church, has the power to make any form of government for the 
Church, subject to the restrictions imposed, and under the clause which gives to the 
Conference the authority to make needful rules and regulations for the Church. 


Mr. E. L. Fancuer,—May it please your Honours, I refer, in the first place, as 
to the powers of the General Conference with respect to the bishops as to the system 


14 


210 


and polity of the Church, which requires that the bishops travel through the Con- 
nexion at large, to book of Proofs No. 1, pp. 131-134,—* Extracts from the Address 
of the Bishops to the General Conference of 1844,”’ which is dated New-York, May 
2d, 1844, signed by all the bishops, including Bishops Soule and Andrew, who are 
now bishops in the Southern Church. 


‘Tt should never be forgotten that those fundamental principles which define and 
limit the powers of the General Conference, and secure the privileges of every minis- 
ter and member, were settled by the body of ministers assembled in conventional 
form, with great unanimity, after long, deliberate, and careful investigation. And 
it is equally worthy of regard, that the Church, with almost unanimous consent, and 
with heart-felt satisfaction, looked to the system as a haven of safety, and a dwell- 
ing-place of ‘quietness and assurance.’ 

“Tn this happy state of things, embracing all the essential elements of the volun- 
tary principle, the ministers dependant upon the people whom they served in the 
Gospel word and ordinances, and the people united to their ministers by the bonds 
of affection and esteem, the work of the Lord steadily advanced; new and extensive 
fields of labour were constantly opening before us; the borders of our Zion were 
greatly enlarged ; and thousands and tens of thousands were brought under Divine in- 
fluence, and joined in the communion of the Church. The events of each succeed- 
ing year have afforded additional proofs of the soundness of the system, and of its 
adaptation to the ends for which it was designed. 

“The general itinerant superintendency, vitally connected, as it is believed to be, 
with the effective operation, if not with the very existence, of the whole itinerant sys- 
tem, cannot be too carefully examined or too safely guarded. And we have no 
doubt but you will direct your inquiries into such channels as to ascertain whether 
there has been any departure from its essential principles, or delinquency in the ad- 
ministration in carrying it into execution; and in case of the detection of error, to 
apply such correction as the matter may require. 

“There are several points in this system which are of primary importance, and on 
that account should be clearly understood. The office of a bishop or superintendent, 
according to our ecclesiastical system, is almost exclusively executive ; wisely limited 
in. its powers, and guarded by such checks and responsibilities as can scarcely fail to 
secure the ministry and membership against any oppressive measures, even should 
these officers so far forget the sacred duties and obligations of their holy vocation as 
to aspire to be lords over God’s heritage. 

‘‘So far from being irresponsible in their office, they are amenable to the General 
Conference, not only for their moral conduct, and for the doctrines they teach, but 
also for the faithful administration of the government of the Church, according to the 
provisions of the Discipline, and for all decisions which they make on questions of 
ecclesiastical law. In all these cases this body has original jurisdiction, and may 
prosecute to final issue in expulsion, from which decision there is no appeal. 

‘With these safeguards thrown around them, we trust the Church has nothing to 
fear from the exercise of that authority which has been committed to them in trust, to 
be used for the conservation of the whole body, and for the extension of the Re- 
deemer’s kingdom, and not to oppress or afflict any. Without entering minutely 
into the details of what is involved in the superintendency, as it is constituted in our 
Church,. it is sufficient for our present design to notice its several departments. 

“Ist. Confirming orders, by ordaining deacons and elders. 

“2d. Presiding in the General and Annual Conferences. But there is a marked 
difference in the relations the president sustains to these two bodies. The General 
Conference, being the highest judicatory of the Church, is not subject to the official 
direction and control of the president any further than the order of business and the 
preservation of decorum are concerned ; and even this is subject to rules originating 
inthe body. The right to transact business, with respect to matter, mode, and order 
of time, is vested in the Conference, and limited only by constitutional provisions ; 
and of these provisions, so far as their official acts are concerned, the Conference, and 
not the president, must be the judge. 

“TI. Having noticed in what the superintendency chiefly consists, it is proper to 
observe that the plan of its operation is general, embracing the whole work in con- 
nexional order, and not diocesan, or sectional. Consequently any division of the 


14* 


211 


work into districts, or otherwise, so as to create a particular charge, with any other 
view, or in any order, than as a prudential measure to secure to all the conferences 
the annual visits of the superintendents, would be an imnovation on the system. 

‘< III. If we have taken a correct view of this subject, our swperintendency must be 
itinerant, and not local. It was wisely provided in the system of Methodism, from its 
very foundation, that it should be the duty of the superintendent ‘to travel through the 
Connexion at large.’ And although the extension of geographical boundaries, and the 
great increase of the annual conferences, have made it necessary to increase the 
number of the bishops, still the duty required, and the obligation to perform it, re- 
main the same. 

“That such a system as our itinerant ministry could not be preserved in harmo- 
nious and efficient operation under the direction of local bishops, is too obvious to re- 
quire proof. If we preserve a travelling ministry, we must have travelling superin- 
tendents. They must add to their official authority the power of their example. 
Remove the latter, and the former will be divested of the chief element of its 
strength. 

“Tt is, indeed, a work which requires a measure of the zeal, and self-sacrificing 
spirit of the apostles, and first ministers of Christ, who followed them. And we de- 
voutly pray that the ministry may never so far relax in the spirit and power of the 
great commission, ‘ Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature,’ 
as to lack men well qualified for this vocation—men whose minds, grasping the work 
of God in all its length and breadth, will count nothing dear to themselves as apper- 
taining to the present life; but giving themselves wholly to God and his Church, will 
live, and labour, and suffer for the promotion of Christ’s kingdom and the salvation 
of souls. 

** With the foregoing remarks on the duties and responsibilities of the superinten- 
dents, we submit to your consideration the importance of having this department sup- 
plied with such a number of effective men as will enable them, in consecutive order, 
to travel through the whole Connexion without subjecting any one to such a con- 
tinued weight of care and labour as is sufficient to prostrate the mental and physical 
energies of the strongest constitution, and thereby indirectly defeat the ends de- 
signed to be accomplished; and, on the other hand, to guard against the increase 
of the number beyond the actual demands of the work. In whatever light we view 
it, but especially in the light of example, the existence of a sinecure in the episco- 
pacy should be regarded as no ordinary evil. 

“ Josnua SouLE, 
Exisan Heppine, 
James O. ANDREW, 
B. Waveun, 
“ New-York, May 2, 1844. Tos. A. Morris.” 


I refer next, as to the usage of the General Conference in canvassing the votes of 
the annual conferences on a proposed change of the restrictive articles, to Proofs No. 
1, pp. 43, 46, and 47. Ialso refer to p. 47, to show that all the annual conferences, 
including the Southern annual conferences, in the Canada case, admitted the neces- 
sity of a change in the sixth restrictive rule before any part of the profits of the Book 
Concern could be apportioned to the Canada Conference. On p. 43 is this minute 
from the journals of the General Conference :— 

“ Resolved, &c., That until the will of the annual conferences shall be ascertained, 
and a final settlement be made, the Canada Conference shall receive the same equal 
annual dividend of the profits of the Book Concern as heretofore. 

‘5th. A motion for the adoption of this resolution was made, voted, and carried. 

‘On motion, The secretary is hereby directed to furnish the delegates from 
Canada with a copy of the decision of this Conference on that business. ; 

‘«‘ The resolution was presented to the annual conferences, and the followmg was 
the result, (according to the minutes of the secretary of the committee to whom the 
business was referred, at the General Conference of 1836 :)—” 

Then follows an address which is out of its place. On p. 46 commences the re- 


port of this committee :— 


212 


“« Cincinnati, Onto, May 6, 1836. 

“« Committee on Canada Claims met on Friday evening, May 6th, at the Preachers’ 
Office, Cincinnati. Committee consists of R. Paine, T. A. Morris, A. Griffith, 
M. Richardson, and C. Sherman. The whole committee present. C. Sherman 
chosen secretary. Rev. Mr. Lord presented to the committee a copy of the resolu- 
tions of the General Conference of 1828 and of 1832, on the subject of an appro- 
priation from the Book Concern of the Methodist Episcopal Church to the Canada 
Conference, which was read. (See Doc. Nos. 1 and 2.) Copies of the resolutions 
of the annual conferences, concurring or non-concurring with the General Conference 
resolution, were then handed to the committee by Rev. B. Waugh, and read. (See 
Doc. No. 3.) The conferences concurring were as follow :— 


New-England Conference, held June, 1832.....-..--.. Ayes 73 Noes 1 
Maine Conference, held July 24, 1832 -....-----....- perl sO 
New-Hampshire Conference, held August 8, 1832...._- ui al AL, 
Oneida Conference, held 1833-..--..22....-....5.-- era fit US A 
Genesee Conference, held July, 1832 -........--....- oo GOO LP Pi | 
New-York Conference, held June 9, 1833 ...._.....-- “ 142 see) 
Six conferences. For concurrence, 503 Against, 17 


“The conferences non-concurring were as follow :— 
Kentucky Conference, held Oct. 22, 1832 Non-concurring, 66 Concurring, 0 
“oe 


Indiana Conference, held October 17, 1832/2 ees 36 0 
Pittsburgh Conference, held August 23, 18322023 Re 61 i 6 
South Carolina Conference, held April 29, 1833.ae2 os 26 “ 24 
Mississippi Conference, held May 15, 1833....---- + 15 ee 7 
OhiorConferenc ee see i Se SO ee ae ee 62 Ee 28 
Holstein Conference, held March 29, 1833........ “ 34 oe 8 
Virginia Conference, held March 6, 1833........- « 84 “e 0 
Baltimore Conference, held April 5, J833......-- 4 90 % 0 
Philadelphia Conference, held April 24, 1833 _...-. "y 89 “2 1 
Missourt/Conterence*: 64 22226 ee Ee 24 ce 2 
iseprgia Conierenver. . 2s Cl) es ou meb ie aar f 41 a 13 
AlabamaConference®. 32 32. b PL ea “ 22 “ 3 
Iilinois; Conierence....2e ss camiscaa sree coset ey 19 < 2 
Tennessee Conference 2... 2. nnn cnccennc cece 3 72 & 2 
Fifteen conferences non-concurring. Number for, 741 Against, 96 
1 503 
Whole number in the several conferences against, 758 For, 599 

“c v3 ee 6 for, 599 


Majority against granting Canada claims, 159 


“‘ Brother Case then addressed the committee, making several remarks and state- 
ments in favour of the claims being answered. Committee was then addressed by 
brother Lord. After some information, obtained by brother Waugh, committee ad- 
journed, to meet again next Tuesday evening. 

** (Signed, ) C. Suerman, Sec’y.” 


To show that the annual conferences of the South voted upon the proposition to 
chahge the sixth restrictive rule in 1844, I refer to the report on the Journal of the 
General Conference of 1848, p. 177. That report has already been read. 


Mr. Lorp,—Mr. Fancher, do you consider that report as evidence on the subject? 
Mr. Fancuer,—lIt is in evidence. 


Mr. Lorp,—The report is evidence that somebody said such was the fact ; but it 
is not evidence of the fact. 


Mr. Fancuer,—I understood that it might be read. 


213 


Mr. Woop,—It may be read subject to the decision of the Court. 


Mr. Lorp,—If my friend will read any one of the certificates from the annual 
conferences as to the result, I will admit that the numbers stated in the report are 
correct. I wish the Court to see how the question was submitted to the annual 
conferences. 


Mr. Fancuer,—I will read the certificate from the Troy Conference. 


“'Froy AnnuaL ConrereNcE, Fripay ArrerNoon, June 28, 1844.—< The 
president brought before the conference the third resolution in the series adopted 
by the General Conference, relative to the alteration of the sixth restrictive arti- 
cle of the Discipline, and other matters; so that the first clause shall read as 
follows :—‘ They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book Concern, nor of 
the Chartered Fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of the travelling, super- 
numerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children, 
and to such other purposes as may be determined on by the votes of two-thirds of the 
members of the General Conference.’ 

“The question being taken on the motion to adopt the resolution, it prevailed— 
one hundred and twenty-three voting in the affirmative, and six in the negative.”’ 

“Thereby certify that the above is a true extract from the Journals of the Troy 
Annual Conference. 

“J. B. Hovcuratine, Secretary of the Troy Annual Conference. 


“ West Troy, March 7th, 1851.” 


Mr. Lorpv,—I am now ready to admit the number stated in the report ; and I will 
sign a consent to that effect with you. 


Mr. Fancuer,—That is not material; the report states the numbers, and the 
report is before the Court. 


Mr. Lorp,—The report is before the Court, to show that such a report was made ; 
but it does not, of itself, prove the facts there stated. We will sign a consent, how- 
ever. 


Juper Netson,—If the counsel insists, the facts stated in the report cannot be 
considered proper and legal evidence of those facts ; the report is only evidence that 
such a report was made. 


Mr. Lorp,—I will sign a consent to the admission as evidence of the numbers 
stated in the report. 


Mr. Ew1ne,—The consent can be signed in the recess. 


Jupcr Netson,—I understood the counsel in his argument to concede that the 
necessary number of votes was nut given to authorize a change of the restrictive 
article. 


Mr. Lorv,—They have not proved that the requisite number was not given. 


Mr Fancuer,—It is not necessary for us to prove it. In the complaint they as- 
sert that the necessary number of votes was obtained. We denied it in our answer 
Therefore the proof was for them to furnish. 


Junce Brrrs,—Let me suggest that it would be, perhaps, advisable for Mr. 
Fancher to yield to Mr. Lord’s suggestion, in order to give perfectness to the evi- 
' dence. The case should not be put to the peril, if it should go further, of being sent 
back on account of informality in the admission of evidence. 


214 


Mr. Fancurr,—Very well. We have acted on the principle that what was the 
truth should be submitted. 


Mr. Lorp,—My friend has acted on that principle throughout. 


Mr. Fancuer,—I refer, in the next place, to show that thousands of ministers 
and members in the territory of the Church, South, were adverse to the proceedings 
of their Southern brethren, and preferred to remain in the Church of their early 
choice, to the Journal of the General Conference of 1848, pp. 19 and 37, where peti- 
tions were presented from the South on the subject ; to the journal of 1848, pp. 116 
and 117, where reports were made on the subject; and p. 175, where the General 
Conference mention it in their Pastoral Address. 


Mr. Lorp,—That, you will understand, is not admitted. It is admitted that it 
was reported to your Conference that such was the fact. 


Mr. Fancurer,—I do not understand it as evidence of anything, except that such a 
report was made to us. 


Mr. Jounson,—How did the subject come before the Conference of 1848 2 
Mr. Fancurr,—On petitions to the General Conference of 1848. 

Mr. Jounson,—Have you got the petitions before you ? 

Mr. Fancuer,—No, sir. 


Juve Netson,—If you deem this material, Mr. Fancher, it must be proved by 
some other evidence, or be admitted by consent of the counsel on the other side. 


Mr. JouHnson,—We do not admit the facts there stated. 


Mr. Fancuer,—The journal of the Conference of 1848 is, I believe, admitted 
under the same consent as Book No. 2. We refer, therefore, to the facts there stated 
in the same light, and expect the same effect to be attributed to them, as they refer 
to their Book No. 2. 


Mr. Ewine,—That is the true exposition of the matter. 
Mr. Lorp,—I will sign a consent. 


Juper Brerrs,—The stipulation admits these journals to be ‘considered as duly 
authenticated and verified by proof.” 


Mr. Fancuer,—The journal of the Conference of 1848 is admitted under the 
same stipulation as Book No. 2. I shall ask no more on this point than that the 
Court take a note of these references, and give them what effect they may be enti- 
tled to. 

I refer also to the journal of the General Conference of 1848, pp. 164—171, as to 
alleged infractions of the Plan of Separation. This is also in Proofs No. 1, 
pp. 154-164 :— 


** Infractions of the Plan. 


“The attention of the committee has been directed, by sundry memorials submit- 
ted to their consideration by the General Conference, to numerous infractions of the 
provisions of the so-called Plan of Separation, upon the part of the Methodist Episco- 


215 


pal Church, South ; and upon this subject present to the Conference the following 
statement and facts :— 

“I. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has officially and authoritatively 
taught the infraction of the Plan by her Convention, her General Conference, her 
Bishops, her Annual Conferences, her Elders, and leading Ministers. 

“1. The Louisville Convention taught the violation of the Plan. 

“Tn the report on organization, passed Saturday, the 17th of May, 1845, the new 
Church is declared to be formed out of the conferences represented in the convention. 
(See History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, p. 186.) But while the 
convention in their formal acts of organization, on Saturday, the 17th of May, make 
this declaration, we find them on the Monday following passing these resolutions, 
(See Western Christian Advocate, vol. xiii, page 42, col. 7,)— 

**« Resolved, That should any portion of an annual conference, on the line of 
separation, not represented in this convention, adhere to the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, according to the Plan of Separation adopted at the late General Con- 
ference, and elect delegates to the General Conference of the Church in 1846, upon 
the basis of representation adopted by the convention, they shall be accredited as 
members of the General Conference. 

“ « Resolved, That, in the judgment of this convention, those societies and stations 
on the border, within the limits of conferences represented in this convention, be con- 
structively understood as adhering to the South, unless they see proper to take action 
on the subject ; and in all such cases, we consider the pastor of the station or society 
the proper person to preside in the meeting.’ 

“Thus, although the convention, in their formal organization, confine themselves 
to the original limits ; yet two days after, when the way was prepared for further 
inroads, they enlarge the provisions of the Plan, and extend it into the boundaries of 
the Philadelphia, Baltimore, and other conferences. And in all societies within the 
border where no votes would be taken, these societies must be constructively under- 
stood as adhering to the South. Hence their preachers have generally prevented 
any voting wherever they could by any means hinder it ; although the Plan of the 
General Conference required the societies to vote. The conclusion is, that the con- 
vention taught the infraction of the Plan in two very important respects. 

“First. They exceed the provisions of the Plan by extending it into the territory 
of the Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and other conferences. ‘Thus they teach 
to cross the line. _ 

“Secondly. And in all societies where no vote would be taken, they claim them 
constructively as belonging to their Church. 

“2. The bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, have taught the infrac- 
tion of the Plan. 

“Bishop Soule, in his letter dated Lebanon, Ohio, August 4th, 1845, and pub- 
lished in the Western Christian Advocate of August 22d, 1845, vol. xiui, p. 75, 
col. 2, teaches the breach of the Plan. It is addressed ‘ to the preachers and border 
societies of the Kentucky and Missouri Conferences, and of other conferences bor- 
dering upon them.’ The bishop here calls on the societies on the Southern verge of 
tne Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa Conferences, to vote whether they will, or will 
not, remain in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Bishop Soule, however, makes 
these regulatious in reference to his own administration. But this same course was 
sanctioned by Bishop Andrew immediately, and afterward by their General Confer- 
ence, and by all their bishops. And indeed Bishop Soule, in his letter to the Rev. 
Wesley G. Montgomery, dated Nashville, April 30th, 1847, and published in the 
Western Christian Advocate of May 21st, 1847, hints broadly enough that minorities 
had best be accommodated. He says: ‘ Minorities on either side of the line of divi- 
sion are entitled to a kind and respectful consideration, and should be treated accord- 
ingly. And I should think it far better for such minorities, being on the borders, to 
receive preachers from the Church to which they desire to adhere, provided they 
believe themselves able to support them, than for majorities to be interdicted the 
exercise of a right plainly secured to them by the provisions of the law, or rule, in the 
case.’ Now with this instruetion about minorities, as well as the maintenance that 
the line is a sliding one, and no limits of time are given in which its sliding opera- 
tion ceases, Southern preachers will find little difficulty in passing over any limits 
which may be in the way. 

‘«But Bishop Capers’ letter to Rev. Mr. Moorman, and published in the Christian 


216 


Advocate and Journal of April 21st, 1847, claims all the territory in the slaveholding 
States, and this too according to the Plan, or, as he calls it, the ‘ Deed of Separation.’ 
Now as Bishop Capers claims all slaveholding territory and Bishop Soule as much 
of the territories of the free States as the accommodation of minorities and the slid- 
ing line will transfer, it would be difficult indeed to fix any line at all. 

‘Tt were useless to insist, in a matter so clear, that the bishops of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, have taught officially the violation of the Plan. 

“3. The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has taught 
the infraction of the Plan. 

“For proof of this we need go no further than the famous report on the episcopa- 
cy, in which the Conference sanctions the breaches of the Plan as taught by the con- 
vention, and as was taught and practised by Bishops Soule and Andrew, from the 
session of the convention in May, 1845, to the session of the Conference in May, 
1846. ‘This document will be found in the Western Christian Advocate of June 26th, 
1846, and in the Richmond Advocate of May 21st, 1846. The report fully clears 
Bishops Soule and Andrew of any blame for occupying Cincinnati, the Kanawha 
district, &c., and gives such full latitude of interpretation, that the limitations of the 
Plan became a perfect nullity. Our limits will not allow us to quote the report, 
but it can be perused in the papers, as cited above, as well as in all the Southern 

apers. 
: “4. The annual conferences, editors, and leading members of the new Church, 
maintain the infraction of the Plan in perfect accordance with the acts of their conven- 
tion, their General Conference, and their bishops. 

“Tt were useless to make quotations on this point. Their press teems with ap- 
proving acts of annual conferences, and the laboured essays and constant admissions 
of editors and correspondents, upholding fully their conventional, episcopal, and 
General Conference decisions and acts. And from all this there is no dissent in any 

uarter. 
ee II. The bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in their official admin- 
istration, have actually broken the Plan. 

** As undoubted and official testimony on this point, we need only quote the report 
on this subject, by our excellent and devoted bishops, which, at the request of the 
General Conference, they furnished the committee. ‘This official document is as fol- 
lows :— 


“ ¢ To the Committee on the State of the Church. 


** «Tn compliance with a request of the General Conference, made on the 6th in- 
stant, the superintendents present to you such information as they possess in regard 
to alleged infractions of the ‘‘ Plan of Separation,” on the part of the constituted 
authorities of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, by which the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church has been injuriously deprived of portions of its territory and members. 
They must be understood as giving the most authentic statements which have come 
to their ears, without vouching their own personal knowledge for the correctness of 
every item thus presented. They are, nevertheless, impressed with a conviction of 
the truth of the statements generally, as hereinafter made. 

** «They commence first with Baltimore Conference. Within its bounds there is 
a portion of the State of Virginia, situated between the Potomac and Rappahannock 
Rivers, commonly called the ‘“ Northern Neck,” embracing the counties of King 
George, Westmoreland, Richmond, Northumberland, and Lancaster. These coun- 
ties contained the following circuits, (having a membership of eight hundred to a 
thousand,) namely, King George, Westmoreland, and Lancaster, each having preach- 
ers annually appointed to it from the Baltimore Conference. At different times each 
of those circuits determined to attach themselves to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
not as border soczelzes, but as circuits. 'To all of them preachers have been sent 
from the Virginia Conference, who are there at present, to the exclusion of the min- 
isters of the Methodist Episcopal Church. From the conference of 1847 preachers 
were sent to this portion of the Baltimore Conference, who found on their arrival 
the circuits under the pastoral care of ministers of the Virginia Conference. The 
ministers sent from the Baltimore Conference, not being able to have access to 
the preaching-places or societies, were withdrawn after suitable time, and sent to 
places where they were needed, except one, who was left in charge of the whole 
field of labour. At present this place appears on the minutes, “to be supplied.” 


217 


No minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church is now in this ancient portion of the 
Baltimore Conference. 

‘« « Warrenton circuit has been occupied between one and two years with preachers 
from the Virginia Conference ; but as the circuit did not go to the Church, South, in 
whole, a portion thereof continuing in the Methodist Episcopal Church, a preacher 
from the Baltimore Conference has been continued there. Some of the societies 
which voted to go to the Church, South, were strictly border societies, but others also 
went which were as strictly interior societies. One of the churches, (Wesley Cha- 
pel,) where a majority adhered to the Methodist Episcopal Church, was forcibly en- 
tered and new locks were attached to the doors; and the Church, South, has it in 
possession at the present time, unless the civil court has recently decided a suit, 
which was instituted for the property, in favour of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

“ ¢ Harrisonburg, in Rockingham county, Virginia, unquestionably an interior soci- 
ety, having by a majority of votes determined to connect themselves with the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, South, a preacher from the Virginia Conference has been ap- 
pointed to labour there. A minority adhering to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
are under the pastoral care of one of its ministers. The church was in a course of liti- 
gation a few months since, and probably the case has not been decided by the court. 
An attempt was made to get possession of the parsonage in Harrisonburg for the 
Church, South, but with what success there is no information. 

*« ¢ Leesburg, a station belonging to the Baltimore Conference, clearly an interior 
society, has been visited by a preacher from the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
much agitation produced in the society and in the community, and a suit at law com- 
menced for the church edifice. Whether the effort is still persisted in to occupy this 
place is not certainly known. That which makes this case even a glaring one, Is the 
fact, that the majority of the society voted to adhere to the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. There are other instances of the violation of the Plan of Separation, in the 
opinion of some equally apparent with the instances given in this paper, of which 
more certain information may be obtained from Rey. Messrs. William Hamilton, 
N. J. B. Morgan, 8. A. Roszel, John Bear, and J. A. Collins, members of this Gene- 
ral Conference. 

“ * Kanawha District, in the North-West part of Virginia, is a part of Ohio Confer- 
ence. Jn 1845 that work was supplied from the Ohio Conference, as usual. The 
preachers were received, with one exception, as far as we know, namely Parkersburg 
station. A part of the members there refused to receive any preacher from Ohio 
Conference. They rejected the preacher sent to them, not for any objection to him 
personally, but because he came from Ohio; and by threats of violence, and prepa- 
ration to execute those threats on a given day, compelled him to leave the place, and 
took possession of the chapel. He, however, returned after some weeks, and in con- 
nexion with the preacher of the adjoining circuit, to which they were transferred, 
served the remaining members of the scattered flock in another house. These out- 
cast members have since erected a chapel for themselves, in which they worship un- 
disturbed ; while the old chapel is supplied from Kentucky Conference, of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, South. Parkersburg is not a border station. It is the county- 
seat of Wood county, situated at the junction of Little Kanawha and Ohio Rivers, 
and is about seventy-five miles from the nearest point of the Kentucky State line ; 
so that the Kentucky preachers had to travel that distance through our work to reach 
it, though they now occupy other places through our work between that and Ken- 
tucky. No preachers were appointed from the Kentucky Conference of 1845 to the 
Kanawha district; but some were sent there, as we learn, during that conference 
year, by a presiding elder, that made breaches in some of our circuits. In 1846 the 
Kanawha district was all supplied from the Ohio Conference, as usual, though the soci- 
eties in some places were divided by Southern influence. A few weeks afterward 
a second supply was sent from Kentucky Conference, as we learned from the news- 
papers. Since that time there have been two presiding elders, and two sets of 
preachers there ; one from Ohio Conference, and the other from Kentucky Confer- 
ence. Indeed it is alleged that, at the last session of the Kentucky Conference, they 
divided the district ; so that the old Kanawha district is now occupied by three pre- 
siding elders—one from Ohio, and two from Kentucky. 

‘«« «These are the most material facts which have been reported to us, bearing on 
the point of inquiry submitted to us, so far as Kanawha district is concerned. 


218 


“«« ¢ & Soule Chapel,’? Cincinnati.i—In 1834 Cincinnati, which had previously been 
one charge, was divided into two, ‘“‘ Wesley Chapel” and “ Fourth-street.” Each 
had definite bounds, within which the stationed minister had exclusive pastoral func- 
tions. Private members were advised to observe these limits in fixing and holding 
their membership, but were not considered bound to do so, and did not in all cases 
practise it. But class-meetings, &c., were held in strict regard to this provision. 

“« « New preaching places have been opened in these charges, under the direction 
and countenance of the presiding elder and preachers in charge, have matured socie- 
ties, and have been finally formed into stations by the presiding bishops, and received 
preachers. 

‘“««Tn 1844 the first city missionary was appointed, and was supported by a City 
Missionary Society, whose object was to carry the Gospel to the destitute. ‘The first 
year, with the approbation of those having authority to direct him, he formed three 
societies, namely, the Bethel, Ebenezer, and Maley Chapel, and succeeded in erect- 
ing two small chapels for ‘‘ Ebenezer” and ‘“ Maley,” in the North-West part of the 
city and suburbs. By permission, he exercised pastoral authority in some or all of 
these societies. 

«Tn 1845 the same brother, Rev. G. W. Maley, was reappoin‘ sd to the same 
mission. At the same time two of the aforesaid societies, Beth: : and Ebenezer, 
were made stations, and Rev. J. W. White and Rev. Joseph Bruner were appointed 
to serve them. These two stations were marked out by metes and bounds, as had 
been invariably done when new stations were formed in Cincinnati. This was done 
in council with the presiding elder of Cincinnati district, two or three days after con- 
ference closed, it having been forgotten in the pressure of conference business. Let- 
ters were written by the presiding bishop to brothers White and Bruner, defining by 
streets, &c., the bounds of the new charges; and the city missionary had Maley 
Chapel, and the region around it, set apart from all the stations as his special field 
of labour, within which, and nowhere else, he was to exercise pastoral functions. As 
the superintendent, however, was in haste, he did not write to the missionary, but 
requested the presiding elder, brother Morley, to give him the information. 

“ «Three objects were sought in this arrangement :— 

“«* First. As the city mission had lost two principal appointments, it seemed pro- 
per to encourage the missionary by assigning him the pastoral charge of this precinct 
sun which was fast filling up, and which must, of course, receive most of his 
abours. 

‘« « Second. Ebenezer station bordered on Maley Chapel, and the population and 
territory were enough to be under the pastoral care of one man, after Maley Chapel 
and its territory were taken off. 

““* Third. It seemed to the presiding bishop proper that each city preacher should 
have exclusive pastoral authority within his own charge; and, though no rupture 
was then dreamed of, it was thought the exercise of pastoral functions by the mis- 
sionary within the different charges would derange and disorder the work. 

_ * ‘Within three or four weeks after these arrangements were made, the city mis- 
sionary obtained leave from the City Missionary Board to preach in ‘“Vine-street 
church,” an old, deserted building within the bounds of Morris Chapel charge, from 
one-half to three-fourths of a mile from Maley Chapel charge, and in the heart of the 
city. If we understand correctly, both the presiding elder and the board deny that 
the missionary received any authority to form a society there, or do any other act 
a belonged to the pastoral oversight. He received no such authority from the 

ishop. 

_“ «A number of brethren, however, obtained certificates, and presented them to the 
city missionary, not in his own charge, but at “ Vine-street,”’ and in the very heart 
of the city he proceeded to take possession of his brother’s territory, and form a so- 
ciety. Having increased it to a company of several scores, it voted to go South, was 
created ‘“‘a charge”’ by the authority of Bishop Andrew, and Revs. E. W. Sehon, G. 
W. Maley, (the missionary,) and S. A. Latta, were appointed to serve it as ministers 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Bishop Andrew named it “‘ Vine-sTREET 
Cuarcr, a border society,” &c. In a short time this society purchased a church, 
in the heart of “ Wesley Chapel charge,” so that between it and the border, or the 
Ohio River, interposes one whole charge, the Bethel, which makes Soule Chapel as 
truly an interior station as though it were in Columbus or Cleaveland. 

“* Andrew Chapel,” Cincinnati.— Andrew Chapel” was purchased a few months 


219 


since by the ‘Soule Chapel” society, and stands within the bounds of Ninth-street 
charge, having, like ‘‘ Soule Chapel,” one whole charge—‘ Morris Chapel””—between 
it and the border or river. It is understood to have regular preaching, but whether 
placed on the minutes of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, as a distinct 
charge, we know not, but understand that pastoral authority is exercised there in the 
formation of classes, receiving members, and exercising discipline. 

“¢ ¢ Statement of encroachment on the territory of the Philadelphia Conference by the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South.—Accomac and Northampton counties, Va., are 
separated from the Virginia Conference by a broad bay, (the Chesapeake,) in every 
place from fifteen to thirty miles wide. The first place that voted to unite with the 
Church, South, was Capeville in Northampton, about seven miles north of Cape 
Charles. The next place at which the vote was taken was Salem, eight miles north 
of Capeville, which, by a strong majority, had previously determined to stay with us. 
The next place was Johnson’s Chapel, about ten miles north of Salem, which, by a 
small majority, preferred the Church, South. The next place reported to have cho- 
sen the Church, South, was Bethel, in Occahannock Neck. Here no vote was taken, 
but some friends of the Church, South, went around to the houses of the members, and 
reported that they had obtained a majority for the new organization. These were all that 
had declared for the South before Mr. Moorman was sent over. Some time after his 
arrival, Franktown, five or six miles north of Johnson’s, gave a majority of one vote 
for the South, by getting together members who had not attended class for years. 
Pungotraque, in Accomac county, about ten miles further north, after giving a ma- 
jority to remain in the old Church several times, at length chose the new Church by 
a small majority. And, finally, Craddockville, a few miles south-east of Pungotraque, 
in a neck, gave a majority for the Church, South. There is no appointment between 
any of the above and the Chesapeake Bay. 

“« ¢ Signed, E. Hepopine, 
B. Waveu, 
Tuomas A. Morris, 
L. L. Hamuine, 
Epmunp S. Janzs.’” 


Mr. Lorp,—That is subject to the same difficulty. 
Mr. Fancuer,—I suppose it is. 


As to the action of the General Conference of 1848, upon the so-called Plan of 
Separation, I refer to the final report on the State of the Church,—Proofs No. 1, 
pp. 1388-154 :— 


“ Final Report on the State of the Church. 


“The committee on the state of the Church, after a full and careful examination of 
all the sources of information within their reach, including, as they believe, all that 
are essential to a just understanding of the subjects hereinafter named, do recom- 
mend to this body the adoption of the following as their final report :— 

1. We claim that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, exists as a distinct 
and separate ecclesiastical communion, solely by the act and deed of the individual 
ministers and members constituting said Church. 

“‘In support of this position we set forth the following facts :—On the fifth day of 
June, one thousand eight hundred and forty-four, John Early, W. A. Smith, Thomas 
Crowder, and Leroy M. Lee, of the Virginia Conference ; H. B. Bascom, William 
Gunn, H. H. Kavanaugh, Edward Stevenson, B. T. Crouch, and G. W. Brush, of 
the Kentucky Conference ; W. W. Redman, W. Patton, J. C. Berryman, and J. 
M. Jameson, of the Missouri Conference; E. F. Sevier, S. Patton, and Thomas 
Stringfield, of the Holston Conference ; G. F. Pierce, William J. Parks, L. Pierce, 
J. W. Glenn, J. L. Evans, and A. B. Longstreet, of the Georgia Conference ; James 
Jamieson, Peter Doub, and B. T. Blake, of the North Carolina Conference; J. 
Stamper, of the Illinois Conference; G. W. D. Harris, Wm. M’Mahan, ‘Thomas 
Joyner, and S. 8. Moody, of the Memphis Conference ; John C. Parker, William 
P. Radcliffe, and Andrew Hunter, of the Arkansas Conference ; William Winans, 


220 


B. M. Drake, John Lane, and G. M. Rogers, of the Mississippi Conference ; Little- 
ton Fowler, of the Texas Conference ; Jesse Boring, Jefferson Hamilton, W. Mur- 
rah, and G. Garrett, of the Alabama Conference; Robert Paine, John B. M’Ferrin, 
A. L. P. Green, and T. Maddin, of the Tennessee Conference; and W. Capers, 
Wm. M. Wightman, Charles Betts, S. Dunwody, and H. A. C. Walker, of the 
South Carolina Conference, did present to the General Conference, then in session 
in the city of New-York, the following Declaration, to wit :—‘ That the continued 
agitation of the subject of slavery and abolition in a portion of the Church, the 
frequent action on that subject in the General Conference, and especially the extra- 
judicial proceedings against Bishop Andrew, which resulted, on Saturday last, in 
the virtual suspension of him from his office as superintendent, must produce a state 
of things in the South, which renders a continuance of the jurisdiction of that Gene- 
ral Conference over these conferences, inconsistent with the success of the ministry 
in the slaveholding States ;’ from which it is evident that they sought their remedies 
for alleged grievances, not in any constitutional acts, but in a violation of the integ- 
rity of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

‘And further, on the sixth day of June, in the year above-written, the above- 
named gentlemen, and N. C. Berryman, of the Illinois Conference ; I. 'T. Cooper, 
W. Cooper, T. J. Thompson and Henry White, of the Philadelphia Conference ; E. 
W. Sehon, of the Ohio Conference, and T. Neal and T. Sovereign, of the New- 
Jersey Conference, in addition, presented a Protest to the above-named General 
Conference against its action in the case of Bishop Andrew, in which they assert, 
‘If the compromise law be either repealed, or allowed to remain a dead letter, the 
South cannot submit, and the absolute necessity of a division is already dated.’ 
Now, while we wholly deny the existence of any ‘compromise law,’ in the sense 
here claimed, the indication in this extract, and, indeed, in the whole document, of 
a purpose upon the part of those protesting brethren to secure a division of the 
Church is too plain to be mistaken. 

‘And further, at the close of the General Conference, on the eleventh day of 
June and year above-mentioned, fifty-one of the above-named brethren assembled in 
the city of New-York, and by formal resolution recommended to the Southern con- 
ferences the appointment of delegates to a convention, to commence in Louisville, 
Kentucky, on the first day of May, one thousand eight hundred and forty-five, said 
delegates to be instructed on the points on which action is contemplated, conform- 
ing their instructions, as far as possible, to the opinions and wishes of the member- 
ship within their several conference bounds. And the said brethren issued from 
this unauthorized meeting an address, in which they call the attention of the 
Southern Methodists ‘to the proscription and disability under which the Southern 
portion of the Church must, of necessity, labour in view of the action alluded to, 
unless some measures are adopted to free the minority of the South from the oppres- 
sive jurisdiction of the majority in the North in this respect ;’ and they declare, 
‘that they regard a separation at no distant day as inevitable.’ There is, therefore, 
no room to doubt that the appointed Louisville Convention was one of those leading 
‘measures’ adopted by these fifty-one brethren for the express purpose of freeing 
the minority of the South from what they are pleased to term ‘the oppressive juris- 
diction of the majority in the North,’ and that the contemplated separation, if it ac- 
tually occurred, must be the legitimate result of these premature preliminary 
arrangements. 

“And further, the several annual conferences now included in the Church, South, 
did, at their meetings, successively, of their own will and accord, vote to approve 
the holding of the Louisville Convention, for the purposes proposed by the members 
of the aforesaid meeting at New-York, appointed delegates to said convention, and 
in various forms of expression, directly assumed, as far as they were able, the re- 
sponsibility of the dismemberment of the Church evidently contemplated in the ap- 
pointment of said Louisville Convention. 

“In the meantime Bishop Soule wrote to Bishop Andrew, requesting him to re- 
sume episcopal functions, and, in the character and office of a bishop, to attend the 
sessions of annual conferences, which he did, though said act was clearly in contra- 
vention of’ the expressed will of the General Conference, ‘that he desist from the 
exercise of the’ episcopal ‘ office so long as the impediment’ of slaveholding ‘ re- 
mained.’ By which acts both Bishop Soule and Bishop Andrew openly repudiated 
the authority of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 


221 


* And further, in the convention assembled at Louisville, May, one thousand eight 
hundred and forty-five, delegates from the following conferences, namely, Kentucky, 
Missouri, Holston, Tennessee, North Carolina, Memphis, Arkansas, Virginia, Missis- 
sippi, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and Indian Mission, Bishops 
Soule and Andrew presiding, did formally resolve, ‘ That it is right, expedient, and 
necessary, to erect the annual conferences represented in this convention into a dis- 
tinct ecclesiastical Connexion, separate from the jurisdiction of the General Confer- 
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as at present constituted,’ and they did 
‘solemnly declare the jurisdiction hitherto exercised over said annual conferences by 
the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church entirely dissolved; and 
that said annual conferences shall be, and they hereby are, constituted a separate ec- 
clesiastical Connexion.’ Accordingly a delegated General Conference from the 
annual conferences above-named, held at Petersburgh, Virginia, May, one thousand 
eight hundred and forty-six, did assume the powers and privileges of authorized 
representatives of a separate ecclesiastical Connexion, under the style and denomina- 
tion of ‘the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ to which Church many of the 
former ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, some evidently 
from choice, and others from the force of circumstances which they felt themselves 
unable to resist, did, formally or informally, attach themselves, thereby withdrawing 
themselves from the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

“‘ Finally, while a clearly-marked line of history, extending from the first-named 
Declaration to the final action of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, shows the independent action of the ministers and members of said 
Church, in its organization, we affirm it to be impossible to point to any act of the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church erecting or authorizing said 
Church, nor has the said General Conference, or any individual or any number of 
individuals, any right, constitutional or otherwise, to extend official sanction to any 
act tending directly or indirectly to the dismemberment of the Church. 

‘¢2. In view of the formal Declaration of the brethren herein first named, that certain 
acts of the General Conference, especially the act in the case of Bishop Andrew, 
‘must produce a state of things in the South which renders a continuance of the 
jurisdiction of that General Conference over these conferences inconsistent with the 
success of the ministry in the slaveholding States ;’ fearmg that ministers and mem- 
bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church would, according to the opinion expressed 
in the Declaration above quoted, deem it necessary to erect themselves into a sepa- 
rate and independent Church, in the intervals of General Conference sessions, when 
no remedies for so great an evil could be provided in time, and desiring, as far as 
practicable, in accordance with suggestions made by brethren from the South, to 
adopt measures calculated to pacify our members and ministers in the South; the 
General Conference, at its session in New-York, A. D. one thousand eight hundred 
and forty-four, did propose a Plan for the adjustment of relations between the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church and her separating members and ministers, when such separa- 
tion should, by their own act and deed, if at all, occur. Such Plan, based entirely 
upon the first-named Declaration of the delegates from thirteen specified and above- 
written conferences in the slaveholding States, having relation to those conferences, 
and to no others, proposed an amicable division of territory between them and the 
Methodist Episcopal Church as follows :—‘ The Northern boundary’ of the prospective 
new Church to be fixed at the Northern extremities of those ‘ societies, stations, and 
conferences,’ a majority of whose members should, of their own free will and accord, 
vote to adhere to the said Southern Church; and ministers, travelling and local, to 
be allowed to remain in the Methodist Episcopal Church, or attach themselves to the 
‘Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ at discretion. And said Plan further proposed 
to make over and give to the prospective ‘Southern Church so much of the capital 
and produce of the Methodist Book Concern as will, with the notes, books, accounts, 
presses,’ &c., in the South, due and belonging to the Book Concern of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, (the transfer of which is provided for in the fourth article of said 
Plan,) ‘bear the same proportion to the whole property of said Concern that the 
travelling preachers in the Southern Church shall bear to all the travelling preachers 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church.’ And said Plan further proposed, that ‘ the 
book agents at New-York be directed to make such compensation to the conferences 
South for their dividend from the Chartered Fund as the commissioners to be pro- 
vided for shall agree upon.’ 


222 


‘‘ But the whole of this plan was expressly or otherwise conditional, as follows, 
namely :— 

us (1) That the asserted ‘state of things in the South, which renders a continuance 
of the jurisdiction of that General Conference over these conferences inconsistent 
with the success of the ministry in the slaveholding States,’ should be ‘ produced’ by 
the action of the General Conference in the cases referred to. 

‘©(2.) That three-fourths of the members of all the annual conferences should, 
‘at their first approaching sessions,’ concur in the vote of, at least, two-thirds of the 
General Conference so to alter ‘ the sixth restrictive article’ of the Discipline, as to 
add to it the following words, to wit :—‘ and to such other purposes as may be 
determined upon by the votes of two-thirds of the members of the General Confer- 
ence ;’ it being certain, that should such vote be refused by the annual conferences, 
the financial part of the Plan could not go into effect, which financial part was deemed 
by both parties essential to the Plan ; and it being probable that those who were op- 
posed to the Plan as a whole, would vote against the change in the sixth restrictive 
article. 

‘«(3.) It was clearly and necessarily implied, that the friendship and fidelity of the 
parties should be evinced by voluntarily keeping inviolate the principles and ordi- 
nuances of the Plan, pending the settlement of the important conditions upon which its 
validity and binding force depended. 

‘Tn support of the above statement of facts, we refer expressly to the aforemen- 
tioned declaration of the fifty-one Southern brethren, and to the report of the com- 
mittee of nine, presented to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church on the seventh day of June, 1844. 

“ And further, it will be observed that the declaring brethren of the South did not 
claim that a state of things already existed, that required any separation of the South 
from the jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church; or that required the posi- 
tive enactment of any unconditional plan of such separation. They only asserted 
that (in their opinion, of course) certain acts of the General Conference ‘ must pro- 
duce’ this state of things. And hence they did not proceed upon the supposition that 
they were the official judges of the facts, which might require the separation of the 
Southern ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church from her juris- 
diction. It is true that the report of the committee of nine, as it was first presented, 
made these delegates from the thirteen conferences South the judges of that neces- 
sity ; but it was so changed as to leave the question to the annual conferences from 
which they came, thus showing that the General Conference would by no means 
allow this question of necessity to be decided by these men. From all of which it 
appears, that the Plan proposed rested, not upon the present or future exzstence of 
any state of excitement in the South, which might be produced by causes entirely 
apart from the General Conference ; but upon the production of such a state of things 
as was predicted by the acts of the General Conference alone. Certainly if, upon 
returning to their charges, our Southern brethren had found that no such ‘state of 
things’ as they had supposed existed, and hence no separation had occurred, they 
would not assert the validity of the proposed Plan; and if it would have been of no 
binding force, in the absence of the predicted necessity, produced solely by the ac- 
tion of the General Conference, it follows inevitably that such necessity so produced 
was an indispensable condition of the Plan. And, though this necessity had actually 
been so produced, and the Southern ministers and members had actually separated 
on this ground alone, in this case one of the conditions of the Plan would have been 
met, we nevertheless affirm that in failure of this condition, the Plan became invalid, 
though every other condition of it had been literally fulfilled. 

“ And further, in proof that the proposed alteration of the sixth restrictive article 
of the Discipline was a fundamental condition of this Plan as a whole, we refer to the 
third resolution of the report of the committee of nine, in which it is expressly as- 
serted. Also to the published speech of Rev. Dr. (now Bishop) Paine, from which 
the following language was reported :—‘ This separation would not be effected by 
the passage of those resolutions through the General Conference. They must pass 
the annual conferences, beginning at New-York, and when they came round to the 
South, the preachers there would think, and deliberate, and feel the pulse of public 
sentiment, and of the members of the Church, and act in the fear of God, and with 
a single desire for his glory.’ Every word of which, in its connexion, would be en- 
tirely incompatible with the idea that he referred merely to an extension of the power 


223 


of the General Conference in relation to the appropriation of funds ; but it is perfectly 
consistent with the doctrine here asserted, that a vote on the change of that restric- 
tive article was understood to be a vote on the merits of the Pian as a whole. So, we 
believe, many of the members of the annual conferences regarded it, and hence so 
many of them voted against it as to defeat the measure. Indeed, so essential to the 
Plan did our Southern brethren consider this change of the sixth restrictive article, 
that they never have, in any way, signified their willingness to accept of the Plan 
without it. With this agrees perfectly the Address of the above-named fifty-one 
brethren, from their meeting in New-York, held the 11th day of June, 1844, in which 
they hold the following language :—‘It affords us pleasure to state that there were 
those found among the majority who met this proposition (the Plan, not ‘ of formal 
and specific separations,’ but to provide for the results of separation, should it occur 
under the necessity above explained) with every manifestation of justice and liberal- 
ity. And should a similar spirit be exhibited by the annual conferences in the North, 
when submitted to them, as provided for in the Plan itself, there will remain no legal 
impediment to its peaceful consummation.’ 

“ But ‘if a similar spirit should’ not ‘be exhibited by the annual conferences in 
the North, when submitted to them, as provided for in the Plan itself;’ then, of 
course, by the showing of these fifty-one Southern brethren, ‘ there will remain a 
legal impediment to its peaceful consummation’ as a Plan. It is true that the ques- 
tion of a ratification of the Plan was not directly, and in so many words, submitted to 
the annual conferences ; but it is evident, that in the honest opinion of these South- 
ern brethren, it was in effect so submitted. Nor could it by possibility have been 
otherwise, from the language of the Plan, which submits an amendment of the Dis- 
cipline absolutely essential to the Plan as a whole, the preachers being obliged to 
vote upon said amendment in view of its bearing upon the whole Plan; and the 
failure of said amendment rendering the Plan as a whole entirely unsatisfactory to 
the South : therefore, in the event of a failure of three-fourths of the members of all 
the annual conferences—the Southern conferences included—< at their first approach- 
ing sessions,’ to vote for the change proposed in the sixth restrictive article, said 
Plan would be, as a whole, and hence of necessity in its details, rendered null and 
void. 

*« And further, we claim that the position, that a sacred, though voluntary observ- 
ance of the requirements of the proposed Plan by the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
and the brethren South, who should separate from her, was a fundamental condition 
of the Plan, is a clear and undeniable inference from the whole design and scope of 
said Plan. It was, as its friends openly claimed, a peace measure. It was designed 
to prevent aggressions from either party, and thus to prevent unchristian feelings and 
angry collisions between those who claim to be brethren. If, therefore, this great ob- 
ject, lying at the very foundation of the scheme, and in the light of which alone any 
part of it has the least significancy, were disregarded or trampled under foot by either 
party, the other, as a whole, and every individual of them, would be entirely absolved 
from all obligations to it whatsoever. If, therefore, this shall be found to have been 
done, then, though all other conditions of the Plan were certainly fulfilled, it will be 
to all intents and purposes null and void. 

“Finally, it has fully appeared, that to meet, in what was then supposed to be the 
best manner possible, the disastrous results of a violent dismemberment of the Me- 
thodist Episcopal Church, should it occur, and provide for an amicable adjustment 
of all relations between the two parties, this provisional Plan was adopted by the 
General Conference at its session, in the year 1844—that to provide for, or sanction 
a division of said Church was therefore no part of the intentions of said General Con- 
ference. And that it rested upon three distinct and fundamental conditions, the 
failure of either of which must be fatal to its validity and binding force. And though, 
in the light of four years’ history, we are fully convinced that the act implied a de- 
gree of faith in men not justified by the facts, and under all the circumstances of the 
case it was not adapted to secure its intended results, we cannot for a moment 
question the Christian liberality in which it had its origin. . 

«3. It is evident to us, that the acts of the General Conference complained of, did 
not produce a state of things in the South, which rendered a continuance of the juris- 
diction of said Conference ‘inconsistent with the success of the ministry in the slave- 
holding States ;’ three-fourths of the members of all the annual conferences did 
not concur in the vote to alter the sixth restrictive rule, and thus sanction the Plan, 


224 


for the accommodation of which said alteration was asked; and the conditions and 
requirements of said Plan have been violated : and hence said Plan 2s [and, from the 
first failure of the conditions of said Plan, or either of them, has been] nul] and void. 

“In support of which we offer the following facts :— 

*‘ After the adoption of the proposition for a peace measure, and providing for its 
final ratification and use, in case the predicted separation should occur, it would, as 
we humbly conceive, have been in perfect conformity to said peaceful arrangement 
for the Southern delegates to have used their utmost endeavours, as some of them 
assured us they would do, to quiet the public mind in the South; and entering in- 
stantly upon the regular work, to have met every act of resentment, and every ap- 
pearance of insubordination to the authorities of the Church, with a calm, dignified, 
and determined resistance—to have defended the General Conference, so far as they 
could conscientiously do so, and themselves to the utmost ; for doing which their 
motions, spéeches, votes, Declaration, and Protest, furnished ample materials. To 
have adopted this course would, we believe, have been doing no more than to meet 
the just expectations excited by their peaceful protestations upon the Conference 
floor, and elsewhere, both before and after the vote upon the proposed pacific Plan, 
and their avowed attachment to the Church of their choice, in its uninterrupted in- 
tegrity. But if active peace measures had been either incompatible with their private 
opinions of self-respect, or inconvenient under their peculiar circumstances, they, as 
we verily believe, might have avoided all acts preparatory to the excitement of the 
public mind, and leading directly or indirectly to the division of the Church ; by 
doing which, they would have given to the world an example of moderation under 
circumstances confessedly difficult and trying, worthy of all commendation, and af- 
forded an opportunity for a free, spontaneous, and, in due time, decisive verdict of 
Southern Methodists, upon the question whether the action of the General Confe- 
rence had, and ‘ must necessarily ’ have ‘ produced a state of things in the South, 
which rendered a continuance of the jurisdiction of that General Conference over 
these conferences inconsistent with the success of the ministry in the slaveholding 
States.’ This, we claim and assert, the Methodist Episcopal Church had a right to 
exact of them, in order to a just estimate of the circumstances under which the con- 
scientious and legitimate action of her highest judicatory had placed her in relation 
to the Southern ministers and membership. But, instead of this, these fifty-one 
brethren, by character and position highest m rank and influence among Southern 
Methodists, did, at a meeting called and had before leaving the seat of the General 
Conference, only ten days after the principal action, and five days after the final 
action, in the case of Bishop Andrew, virtually appoint a convention, to be held in 
Louisville, Kentucky, to commence on the first of May, one thousand eight hundred 
and forty-five, to take into consideration the question of a division of the Church ; 
and thus superinduce the very excitement which they should have deprecated, and 
attempted by every laudable means in their power to allay. Indeed, it is evident, as 
it should have been foreseen, that the appointment of that convention alone was, un- 
der the circumstances, decisive of the very question which should have been left to 
the decision of time under the action of all the conservative elements available in the 
case. 

‘‘ Moreover, from the said meeting in New-York, which, if it occurred at all, should 
have given utterance only to counsels peaceful in their nature and tendency, and 
strictly loyal to the Methodist Episcopal Church, an address was issued, ‘To the 
Ministers and Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the slaveholding States 
and Territories,’ in which these fifty-one brethren say, that the ‘ various action of the 
majority of the General Conference, at its recent session, on the subject of slavery 
and abolition, has been such as to render it necessary, in the judgment of those ad- 
dressing you, to call attention to the proscription and disability under which the 
Southern portion of the Church must of necessity labour in view of the action alluded 
to, unless some measures are adopted to free the minority of the South from the 
oppressive jurisdiction of the majority in the North in thisrespect. ‘The proceedings 
of the majority, in several cases involving the question of slavery, have been such as 
indicate most conclusively that the legislative, judicial, and administrative action, of 
the General Conference, as now organized, will always be extremely hurtful, if not 
finally ruinous, to the interests of the Southern portion of the Church, and must ne- 
cessarily produce a state of conviction and feeling in the slaveholding States entirely 
inconsistent with either the peace or prosperity of the Church. The opinions and 


225 


purposes of the Church in the North on the subject of slavery are in direct conflict 
with those of the South; and unless the South will submit to the dictation and in- 
terference of the North, greatly beyond what the existing law of the Church on 
slavery and abolition authorizes, there is no hope of anything like union or har- 
mony.’ 

“Further similar quotations might be made from this Address, but we deem it 
unnecessary. We submit it to a candid world, whether language less respectful to 
the Church of which they were members, or more inflammatory to Southern minds 
in the midst of slavery, could well be used. Surely there is no room for surprise, 
that the most excited meetings soon occurred in all parts of the South, and the most 
indignant resolutions were passed, leading to a degree of public agitation, alarming 
to the peace of the Church and the nation. 

*‘ But one more quotation shall be made, to show that these fifty-one brethren did 
not hesitate, formally, to take the initiative in the work of deciding the question 
which they had raised, and thus actually, as they had already done virtually, give 
the full weight of their influence to counteract the pacific measures which they had 
asked at our hands, and for which they had just voted: ‘As the undersigned have 
- had opportunity and advantages, which those at a distance could not possess, to 
form a correct judgment in the premises, and it may be expected of them that they 
express their views fully on the subject, they do not hesitate to say, that they regard 
a separation at no distant day as inevitable.’ After this declaration, of what avail 
was it to ‘beseech their brethren of the ministry and membership in the slaveholding 
States to examine this matter carefully, and try to reach the conclusion most proper 
under the circumstances?’ or ‘disposed, however, to defer to the judgment of the 
Church, we leave this subject with you?’ The result was what must have been ex- 
pected. The voice of remonstranee, though sincere and beseeching, against the 
revolutionary measures urged on by such powerful talents and influence, was too 
feeble to be heard till the confusion was over, and zt was too late. The act of sepa- 
ration was consummated, as we have already seen, and many thousands hurried out 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church into the new organization, with scarcely an oppor- 
tunity to know what it was for. 

«¢ We thus see clearly that the way for separation was prepared, not by a state of 
things in the South ‘ produced’ by the action of the General Conference, but by revo- 
lutionary measures adopted by the Southern delegates at the very seat, and nearly 
at the time, of our General Conference session. The success of the ministry could 
not have been hindered by our action ; for not only was there no instance of the kind 
alleged, but there was a want of time to produce any such result, before these fifty- 
one brethren, by taking the lead of the Southern mind, anticipated their decision. 
In view of the whole of which we claim and affirm, that the Southern organization 
was consummated in direct contravention of the Plan proposed to meet the results of 
separation, thus reducing it to a nullity, by the violation of its first great and funda- 
mental condition. And we moreover claim and affirm, that the very acts of calling 
the convention and issuing the said Address, by which Southern opinion was fore- 
stalled, was an abandonment of the Plan proposed by the General Conference, and 
hence, for the reason above alleged, the Plan has been of no real force since the date 
of said call and Address—to wit, the 11th day of June, 1844. 

“ And further, it appears from official returns made from all the annual conferences 
voting thereon, including those now embraced in the Church, South, obtained since 
this session commenced, that the required three-fourths’ majority of the members of 
the said annual conferences has not been given, and hence, and for this reason, as 
shown above, the Plan is null and void. 

“ And further, from information officially given by the bishops of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, in answer to a call upon them by the General Conference for a state- 
ment of the facts in the premises, it appears that in numerous instances the Plan pro- 
posed in the event of a separation has been openly violated by the Southern Church, 
and hence that the peace upon the border and elsewhere, which it was designed to 
promote, has not been secured. The bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, have claimed a movable line, thus transferring, from one place to another, the 
scenes of strife and confusion as fast as society majorities could be obtained, which 
we regard and affirm to be in direct contravention of the most obvious principles of 
the said provisional Plan. And it is in evidence before us, that in numerous instances 
the sense of members on the proposed border has been taken by Southern preach- 


226 


ers, privately, and in various other illegal and inconvenient ways, and hence that so- 
cieties have been reported and claimed for the South, which, by suitable tests, would 
have given large majorities in favour of adhering to the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
And in numerous instances influence has been applied, and often varied, and obsti- 
nately persevered in, to secure a decision in favour of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, and contrary to the wishes of many of our people. And also, in 
some instances, houses of worship, built at the expense, in whole or in part, of mem- 
bers adhering to the Methodist Episcopal Church, have been taken from them without 
their consent, and without compensation, and they have been discommoded by vex- 
atious lawsuits, costs, and in various other ways, by preachers and members attached 
to the Church, South, all of which we claim and affirm is in direct violation of the 
most sacred objects and conditions of the said proposed Plan, showing that it has 
long since, in this way also, been rendered a nullity by our brethren of the South, 
and this, notwithstanding the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, waving 
all conclusions which this General Conference were entitled to draw from the nu- 
merous ascertained infractions of the proposed Plan, resolved, ‘as far as their 
administration was concerned,’ to adhere to it strictly, which, for the sake of the 
magnanimous Christian example it exhibits, and in view of the right of the General 
Conference alone to assert the facts of the infraction and consequent destruction of 
the Plan, we are happy to find they have scrupulously done. 

“Finally, havig thus found, upon clear and incontestable evidence, that the three 
fundamental conditions of said proposed Plan have severally failed, and the failure 
of either of them separately being sufficient to render it null and void, and having 
found the practical workings of said Plan incompatible with certain great constitu- 
tional principles elsewhere asserted, we have found and declared the whole and every 
part of said provisional Plan to be null and void. 

“4. In view of the above-named principles and facts, [as well as the constitu- 
tional rights already referred to,] we regard those who have, by their own act and 
deed, become members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, as having with- 
drawn from the Methodist Episcopal Church. And whereas those who are members 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church in good and regular standing, cannot be deprived 
of such membership without due form of trial, all those members who have not at- 
tached themselves to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, are and have been 
members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and as such they are entitled to its care 
and privileges, as provided for in another report of this committee. Respectfully 
submitted. GrorcE Prcx, Chairman.” 


I wish to refer to the manuscript journal of the General Conference of 1808, to 
read a letter from Ezekiel Cooper, in relation to the Book Concern. I refer to it 
for the purpose of showing how this fund has accumulated. 


Mr. Lorp,-—That ought to have been read before the argument commenced. 
You reserved no right to read it, and permitted me to sum up without its being read. 


Jupcr Netson,—It can be read now if it is within the stipulation. 


Mr. Lorp,—It is within the stipulation ; but it ought to have been read before 
my argument, unless it was agreed to reserve it. 


Jupez Netson,—I understood the counsel to allow the postponement of the read- 
ing of everything on the part of the defence. 


Mr. Lorv,—No matter. 


Mr. Fancuer,—This is a letter from Ezekiel Cooper, book agent, to the General 
Conference of 1808; and is entered on the journals of that Conference, under date 
May 24th, 1808 :-— 


15* 


227 


“Moved by Thomas Ware, and seconded by Wm. Mills, that our present book 
agents be requested to inform the Conference, if they will continue to conduct the 
Concern, and on what terms. 


“ Brother Ezekiel Cooper gave in his resignation as book agent, viz. :— 

‘“«T, Ezekiel Cooper, editor and general book-steward, with affectionate and grate- 
ful emotions of heart, do hereby respectfully acknowledge to my brethren composing 
the General Conference, that the trust and confidence which they have reposed in 
me, as their editor and general book-steward, in the superintendence of their Book 
Concern, has and does most seriously and deeply affect my sensibility, so as to ex- 
cite thankfulness to my brethren, and a grateful reverence and humiliation before 
God, that I have been accounted capable and qualified to fill the station, and have 
been considered as worthy of trust and confidence in so important and interesting a 
department ; and it is a matter of inexpressible delight, that I can ingenuously declare 
to you, that I have, with conscious rectitude, served the interests of the Connexion 
with persevering integrity and fidelity, to the best of my ability; and as our report 
to you will show, from a view of the stock account now rendered, I have served 
your interests successfully. And may I flatter myself that I have served you with 
acceptance, so far as to meet the testimony of your approbation ; than which, I do 
not know any temporary consideration that is capable of giving me a greater satis- 
faction and gratification. 

** When I engaged in the Concern, in the spring of 1799, the whole amount of the 
clear capital stock, including debts and all manner of property, was not worth more 
than about $4,000; and I had not a single dollar of cash in hand, belonging to the 
Connexion, to carry on the work, or to procure materials, or to pay a single demand 
against the Concern, which at that time was near $3,000 in debt. Under these 
circumstances, and thus situated, I engaged in the business with reluctance, fear, 
and trembling. I maintained and established the Concern by my own personal 
responsibility for contracts made, and the credit that I had in the confidence of those 
for whom I did business. Thus, with cautious steps, and prudent forethought, and 
calculations in business, I had to struggle and go on by night and day ; and | had in 
certain cases to advance my own cash to meet some of the demands against the 
Concern. In the course of the first year, I got the business tolerably under way, and 
by intense application and great fatigue got released from some embarrassments and 
perplexities, and the business appeared in a state of liberal prosperity. At the 
General Conference in 1804, the Concern had so far prospered that I could show a 
a capital of about $27,000, which was clearing for the Connexion about $23,000 in 
five years, from a capital of about $4,000, which was when I received it in a precarious 
and scattered situation. During which time of five years I had no help allowed me by 
the Connexion, further than a small consideration of $330 and my board per year. 
Four years ago, in 1804, the General Conference appointed Brother John Wilson to 
assist in the business, since which time we have progressed upon the capital of about 
$45,000, according to the report on your table. So that since the time I first en- 
gaged in the business, in 1799, till this time, being nme years, the capital stock has 
imcreased about eleven-fold, which is more than one hundred per cent. per annum, 
or about eleven hundred per cent. in nine years upon the origial capital stock of 
about $4,000, besides the various appropriations to the conferences and other pur- 
poses, as our ledger and day-book will show for. 

“And now, dear brethren, wishing all success to the Connexion, and to the Book 
Concern, I hereby give you notice, that it is my wish and purpose to be released 
from the agency in the Book Concern, and to retire from the responsibility and per- 
plexities of the business. Therefore, I decline being considered as a candidate for 
the editor or stewardship, wishing you may never have an agent to do you less 
service, nor to serve you with less acceptance than I have done. 

“With great consideration, I am, dear brethren, in sentiments of good-will, and 
ministerial affection, and Christian love, yours respectfully, 

‘“ Battimore, May 24th, 1808. Ezrexiet Cooper. 

‘“‘ To the General Conference now sitting.” 


Mr. Jonnson,—Does the gentleman read that to show that the capital swelled 
from $1,000 to $45,000? 


228 


Mr. Fancuer,—The object is to show how the capital accrued. 


Mr. Jonnson,—To show that there were no donations, but that the accumulation 
was the result of the proceeds of the books ? 


Mr. Fancuer,—Yes, sir; I wish to make references in this connexion, to show 
that from the first the travelling preachers, who acted as agents, were compensated 
by a discount to them as wholesale purchasers,—generally, I believe, of one-third. I 
refer to the report finally adopted in the Canada case, (Proofs, No. 1, page 49,) to 
show that the General Conference exercised a right to vary the discount. 


Mr. Jonnson,—What was the discount then? 


Mr. Fancuer,—I do not know what it was then; but it was generally about 334 
per cent. That report, on p. 49, says, that 


“The General Conference have ever claimed and exercised the right to regulate 
the discount at which our books may be sold to wholesale purchasers.”’ 


I refer also to the journals of the Conference of 1840, (pp. 116, 117,) when the 
following resolution was adopted :— 


“5. Resolved, That we allow on all credit sales a discount of twenty-five per cent., 
the credit to extend to the conference ensuing, when, if not paid, to bear interest 
from that date; and a discount of thirty-three and one-third per cent. when the cash 
accompanies the order; provided, that whenever the books are longer than one 
month in arriving at the place of destination, after the reception of the cash by the 
agents, then the purchaser shall be entitled to receive interest on the amount paid, 
for the whole time from the reception of the money until the books are received, 
at the same rate of interest as is charged by the agents; provided, also, such pay- 
ments are made in funds which are at par at the agency.” 


That rule existed until 1848 ; then, as will be seen on reference to the journal of 
that Conference, (pp. 113, 114,) this resolution was adopted :— 


“ Resolved, That a deduction of fifteen per cent. on an average, be made on the 
retail prices of the books of the General Catalogue ; and that the discount to preach- 
ers on the books (with the exception of Bibles and Testaments) be, for cash pur- 
chases, thirty per cent.; on credit, twenty per cent.” 


T next refer, in relation to a point made by the counsel in opening, to the Disci- 
pline of 1840, (page 67,) to show that a travelling preacher may be located without 
his consent. 


“ Quest. 4, What shall be done with a member of an annual conference who 
conducts himself in a manner which renders him unacceptable to the people as a 
travelling preacher? 

* Ans. When any member of an annual conference shall be charged with having 
so conducted himself as to render him unacceptable to the people as a travelling 
preacher, it shall be the duty of the conference to which he belongs to investigate 
the case ; and if it appear that the complaint is well-founded, and he do not give the 
conference satisfaction that he will amend, or voluntarily retire, they may locate him 
without his consent.’ 


I wish now to refer to the fact, which is not in evidence, that the Southern confer- 
ences, the Southern preachers, receive books from the Book Concern, and have re- 
ceived them since 1844, under precisely the same arrangement that was made with 
the Canada Conference. 


Mr. Lorp,—Do you mean the Southern organization, or individual Southern 
preachers ? 


Mr. Fancuer,—lIndividual preachers. 


229 


Mr. Lorp,—If you will draw up a statement of the fact as you wish it admitted, I 
will sign it with you; though I think it ought to have been notified to us before. 


Mr. Fancurer,—! wish to refer to another fact not in evidence—this suit was 
commenced on the 15th of June, 1849. 

In connexion with the reference I have already made to the votes of the annual 
conferences on the change of the sixth restrictive rule, I ask the Court to refer to 
Proofs, No. 1, page 136, the proceedings of May 18, 1848, being a statement of the 
report of the committee on the state of the Church, as to the votes on this question. 


Mr. Lorp,—That was read by Mr. Choate. 


Mr. Fancuer,—Very well. 

I beg to state to the Court that, not having had an opportunity of conferring with 
Mr. Choate, and not having seen his brief, I cannot say that these are all the refer- 
ences we shall make; but these are all of which I have a note. I reserve the right 
to make other references whenever Mr. Choate may be able to attend. 

The Court then adjourned. 


FIFTH DAY.—Fripay, May 23, 1851. 


Mr. Ew1ne,—If the Court please—Mr. Choate, who, by our arrangement, was 
to proceed this morning with the argument, I am sorry to say, is ill. His physician 
says he will be able to proceed on Monday. We would ask, as a favour of your 
Honours, that the case be postponed until then. 


Mr. Woop,—Mr. Choate has prepared to open this case upon the evidence; and, 
as your Honours are aware, it is a very different preparation for the one who is to 
open and the one who is to follow, and it would derange our whole proceedings if 
we were to change the order of speaking. 


Mr. Jounson,—The complainants have no objection tothe postponement. The 
clients whom I represent, and I myself, will suffer some inconvenience from it, but 
that is nothing compared to the absolute necessity of granting this indulgence to Mr. 
Choate. Iam satisfied that the counsel associated with him are not prepared to take 
his place in the argument. It will be perfectly satisfactory to us if your Honours 
yield to the application. 


Mr. Woov,—If the Court will allow this privilege, we shall arrange to go on with 
the case on Monday, whether Mr. Choate be able to attend or not. 


Jupcz Netson,—That must be understood; the case must go on on Monday. 
In consequence of the illness of Mr. Choate, who is the counsel selected to open the 
argument on the part of the defendants, we shall be obliged to postpone the argu- 
ment until Monday morning. I was informed yesterday afternoon that Mr. Choate 
was quite unwell, was under the charge of a physician, and it was doubtful whether 
he would be able to come to Court this morning. It seems this morning that he is 
not as well as he was yesterday. He is not able at present to come to Court to open 
the argument on the part of the defendants. Of course, from the necessity of the 
case, we shall be obliged to postpone the argument, however inconvenient it may be 
to the business of the Court, or to the counsel concerned. The argument of the case 
therefore will be postponed until Monday morning at ten o’clock. Then it must go 
on, without regard to the condition of the counsel. 

The Court was then adjourned to Monday. 


SIXTH DAY.—Mownpay, May 26, 1851. 


Mr. Fancner handed to the Court the Points of the Defendants, as follows :— 


I. The Methodist Episcopal Church is a religious society, established for the pro- 
motion and spread of Christianity, organized in 1784 as an episcopal Church, inde- 
pendent of the English episcopacy ; and prior to the secession hereinafter mentioned, 
extended through every part of the United States. 


II. Said religious society or institution existed undcr and subject to the law of 
public or charitable uses. 


IIJ. The government and discipline of the society prior to 1808 was under the 
jurisdiction and control of district or annual conferences, held in each of the several 
districts into which the territories within their limits were divided—composed of the 
clergymen within their respective districts : and from the proceedings of those bodies 
generally an appeal lay to a general convention, consisting of the ministers compris- 
ing the annual conferences; and which convention exercised original as well as 
appellate powers. 


IV. Property consisting of real and personal estate, commonly known and distin- 
guished as the Book Concern, has been, and still is, held by trustees, subject to the 
management of said ecclesiastical jurisdictions of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
which is subject to the use following, viz.: to be appropriated “ for the benefit of the 
travelling, supernumerary, and superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, 
widows, and children.” 


V. The said Book Concern was originally commenced by the travelling preachers, 
and it has been held, more especially since 1808, in connexion with, and in subordi- 
nation to, the judicatories of the Methodist Episcopal Church, who are the managers 
of the charity. 


VI. The Methodist Episcopal Church, through its annual conferences, as such 
managers, cannot be deprived of their power and control over said funds, unless guilty 
of a breach of duty, established by the decree of a court of equity. 


VII. The trustees are accountable for these funds and proceeds thereof to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church and its judicatories, and are bound to pay over said in- 
come, in fulfilment of the trust under their management and direction, to the benefi- 
ciaries. 


VIII. The beneficiaries—to wit, the travelling, supernumerary, and superannuated 
preachers belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church, and their families—have no 
estate in, or right to, the said funds, or the income thereof, otherwise than as the 
same are given out to them from time to time in the administration of the charity. 


IX. Said trustees are not under the contro] or direction of the persons who may 
have contributed to the charity, and who thereby irrevocably parted with the same. 


X. The members in the Southern annual conferences or districts, who left the 
General Conference in 1844, and subsequently formed a new General Conference, 
and a separate ecclesiastical jurisdiction, under the name of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, seceded and separated from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and are 
no longer in connexion with the Methodist Episcopal Church, which is now composed 
of that portion of the former members who remained in it, and are identified with it. 

1. The General Conference who adopted the Report of the Committee of Nine— 
a Plan of Separation so called—had no power to act in the premises. 

2. Said report did not authorize such separation, but was prospective, and was 
accompanied with conditions and terms that have not been complied with. 

3. There was no cause of complaint against the action of the General Conference 
to render a separation necessary or expedient; their general action (and more espe- 
caer in the case of Bishop Andrew) being warranted by the rules and usages of the 

urch, 


231 


4, There was a special agreement about the property in question, which should 
govern, (if the action of the General Conference is available,) in virtue of which 
agreement the plaintiffs, under the facts of the case, can have no right thereto. 


XI. The secession of the members newly organized as a separate Church, if it had 
been legitimate and fully authorized, and with the entire consent of the Church, 
would not entitle them to any portion of said funds, without an express agreement to 
that effect, sanctioned by a court of competent jurisdiction. 


XII. The plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief prayed for in their bill. 


Hon. Rurus Cuoatse,—I feel extreme regret, may it please your Honours, that I 
have been obliged to avail myself so largely of the unfailing kindness of the Court ; 
and I hope I shall be able to requite it by reasonable brevity at last. I regret 
nearly as much that I could not hear the close of Mr. Lord’s argument, although, 
apart from the instruction and delight which I am sure I should have derived from it, 
it is of less importance since I do not intend to attempt a reply to his address, but 
rather to confine myself to opening at large and independently somewhat the general 
answer to the plaintiffs’ case. 

The question presented upon this record, and upon these proofs, arises, doubtless, 
out of a transaction of singular and sad interest, and one suggestive of many admo- 
nitions, and thoughts, and fears—I mean the dismemberment, partial and pro tempore, 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. But it is after all a question of mere property, 
to be decided according to a strict rule of law. In the decision of that question, 
I have not supposed the Court would be greatly assisted—I have feared they might 
be embarrassed rather—by any attempt on my part to trace in any considerable de- 
tail the causes which have conducted to this dismemberment, or to appreciate the re- 
lative measures of blame or responsibleness which may seem to attach to the actors 
or antagonisms that have produced it, and still less by hearing us at the bar, if we 
were inclined to do so, criminate and recriminate upon the motives that have led to 
the institution or defence of this particular suit. All that office, if it is to be done, 
will be done better, perhaps, elsewhere. History, which, it is said, keeps a durable 
record of all characters and all actions, and before whose tribunal and judgment of the 
dead, Church, and priest, and people must answer one day, will perform that office far 
better, stne zra et sine studio,—if not now, when some generations shall have passed 
away. I could desire, therefore, to confine myself exactly and closely to the merits 
of the question as a question of property. Some observations, however, which have 
fallen necessarily from my-learned and able friend in the course of his very skilful 
and powerful address, some things that have been very emphatically read from the 
proofs in the case, and the peculiarities of the extraordinary controversy itself, make 
it necessary, perhaps, that I should spend a few minutes in the outset upon topics 
which, I must own, seem to me only quite remotely bearing upon these merits. And 
we naturally feel a little anxiety, in the first place, to address ourselves to an obser- 
vation—not perhaps in terms made by my learned brother, yet obviously presenting 
itself to any one adverting to the aspects of the controversy and these parties—that our 
attitude is not a very graceful one to begin with, inasmuch as we seem to stand here 
assenting to a division of the Church, and dissenting from a partition of its funds. 

I hope it may be thought enough, in the first place, before advancing further, on be- 
half of the defendants on the record to say—I mean the defendants who have charge of 
the property which is the very subject of the bill, the Book Concern—that they received 
it some time since, upon trust, to apply it to certain definite, inflexible, and peremptory 
charitable uses, for the benefit of a certain limited and particular description of mem- 
bers of the Methodist Church, their wives, families, and their widows, remaining mem- 


232 


bers—-remaining members, may it please your Honours, for that is the qualification on 
which this title in every beneficiary begins, and is to be held to the last—to be applied 
to those beneficiaries under the direction of the General Conference of this Church; and 
that they have never been directed nor authorized, so far as they can understand it, 
to withdraw a farthing from these uses, or to pay one farthing of money in any other 
direction, and therefore they must suppose that they hold it under the original trust 
unaltered in the slightest particular. Still it would be enough, I humbly submit, 
for me to say, on behalf of these defendants on narrower grounds, and for the other 
two defendants on this record,—I mean the commissioners appointed under the Plan 
of Separation, to act in the division of this fund,—it would be enough to say for 
them, that according to that very Plan on which these parties bring their bill to-day, 
they are directed to pay nothing to the plaintiffs, but upon the happening of a cer- 
tain definite contingency, the rescision of the restrictive rule by the annual con- 
ferences, and that contingency has never happened. Prima facie, I am quite sure 
this is a sufficient excuse for those defendants refusing the demand out of Court, and 
defending a suit in. Prima facie, I am sure this requires them to do both one and 
the other. Whether these annual conferences ought or ought not in foro conscientie 
to have acceded to the recommendation of the General Conference is not for these 
defendants to consider. Whether, if they had done so, it would have answered the 
purposes at large, I shall, perhaps, have occasion to consider in the progress of this 
discussion. But until they have done it, surely, surely we hold the fund still under 
the old trust of half a century ago, according to which this property has been 
administered as a sacred thing, without the interruption of a moment to this hour, 
on the faith of a religious and consistent interpretation and administration of which 
scores, hundreds, thousands have lived, and laboured, and died, or live and labour still, 
within the vineyard and bosom of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and which we do 
not admit, as I understand, to be modified or displaced in the slightest degree. 

Of the nature of that fund, and of the character of the rights of the beneficiaries 
in it, I shall have occasion to speak very much at length in the progress of this 
debate. Enough now, and for the defendants of record, that it exists, and that, ac- 
cording to that very Plan, but for which these plaintiffs upon their own concession 
are only a mass of disconnected seceders, it is our bounden duty to everybody so 
to keep, and guard, and administer it, until the annual conferences, or the supreme 
authority of this tribunal, shall ordain a different disposition of it. 

So much for the defendants of record. But what shall I say of the beneficial and 
larger part of the Methodist Episcopal Church behind? Is their attitude a graceful 
one, assenting to the division of the Church, and yet not assenting to a division of 
the funds? In the first place, the Court will perceive when we have advanced a 
little further in this argument, that we do not admit that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church—that old, grand, well-compacted, and once beautiful community, designed by 
its Creator, by Wesley, and by the generation of Wesley, for a duration on earth 
without end—is dismembered legally and totally. We do not even admit that it has 
been dismembered de facto and by secession permanently. We know very well, 
what we will call for convenience in the progress of this discussion, secession dé 
facto, has taken place—a secession, improvident, needless, and never sufficiently to 
be deplored; and creating I know not what extraordinary and anomalous relations 
between the seceder and the Church. But we have not yet renounced the hope,—I, 
personally and professionally, at any rate, however it may be with my clients and 
associates, have not yet renounced the hope, and spare me if you may to cherish the 
grateful error still, that when your Honours shall have pronounced this secession un- 
authorized in matter of law, as well as unjustifiable, perhaps, upon the circumstances 


233 


in point of fact in which it occurred,—I have not renounced the hope that the sober 
second thought may supervene, that the old instincts of the Methodist community 
may come again into activity, that in the language of the Louisville Convention, for 
whose parting words of kindness J, for one, stand here to thank them, some plan of 
reunion may yet be proposed by the wisdom and Christianity that still enrich this 
Church, whereby it may to a considerable extent be reunited, whereby it may to a 
considerable extent become the same old Church again, and shine with something 
like the brightness of its rismg. That hope, for one, I have not yet relinquished. 
Peradventure, if this step which the plaintiffs have taken shall turn out to be unpro- 
fitable as well as devious, it may be the easier to retrace it. Many times, I remem- 
ber the historian tells us, many times the alienating states of Greece had all but made 
up their minds to discontinue the common consultation of the Oracle of Delphi, and 
seek for the will of Jove in divers local temples, had not the impracticability of parti- 
tioning the treasures which the piety of so many generations had gathered on the 
charmed neutral ground, necessitated a salutary delay. So, possibly, may it be here. 

Allow me to make another observation or two entirely preliminary to the con- 
sideration of the merits of this case. The complaint here at last must be, before this 
forum and before the outer forum, that the annual conferences have not adopted the 
recommendation of the General Conference, and have not concurred in the rescision 
of the restrictive article. Will our friends of the South take a little time when they 
go home, and inquire whether the South has not it to answer for itself? I do not 
know that if I should pause I could establish it by these proofs in every particular 
as I shall assert it, but Ido aver, that when the annual conferences, in 1844 and 
1845, began first to vote on this recommendation, the first votes that were thrown 
were such as led every man to believe that it would have been adopted; and it was 
only because the temper of the South began to be so warm, and so high, and so ex- 
asperating, that these hopes were, I believe, tothe regret of a great majority who 
were either observers or concerned, wholly overcast. One thing I know, and that is, 
that the first conferences that voted—I mean the New England and the Northern con- 
ferences generally, from which the greatest opposition had been anticipated—voted 
favourably ; and when the time came for conferences from whom less opposition had 
been anticipated, there was an unexpected and scarcely intelligible turn and change 
of opinion. It will be for your Honours to infer what may be the explanation of the 
indisputable fact. I apprehend if the South would take time and revise those publi- 
cations with which her secular and her religious press were teeming through the 
summer, and autumn, and winter following, the explanation might there be found. 
To show that the suggestion is not wholly imaginary, I think I am able to find some 
proofs in the very evidence which the plaintiffs have introduced, in the proceedings 
of the annual conferences of the South, which resulted in the calling of the Louisville 
Convention, where I find the temper of the Southern press recorded, exposed, and 
proved. Here, for example, on page 13 of the 2d of the Proofs, in the Missouri 
Conference, it was 


‘« Resolved, That we have read with deep regret the violent proceedings of some of 
our Southern brethren in the primary meetings, against some of our bishops and others.” 


They ‘‘ have read with deep regret.” Again, in the proceedings of the Arkansas 
Conference I find the following :— 


‘Resolved, That, though we feel ourselves aggrieved, and have been wounded, 
without cause, in the house of our friends, we have no disposition to impute wrong mo- 
tives to the majority in the late General Conference, and no inclination to endorse those 
vindictive proceedings had in some portions of the South, believing it to be the duty 
of Christians, under all circumstances, to exercise that charity which beareth all things.” 


234 


I could read more ; but I have read enough, I think, to convey my meaning, and 
read enough to establish my suggestion. Your Honours will judge what the temper 
must have been that induced such observations, and will easily appreciate its proba- 
ble or its inevitable influence upon the North. 

Let me say one thing more, and I come nearer the merits of the case. Was there 
not, at the time of the General Conference of 1848, a still subsisting Methodist 
Episcopal Church, although that Conference deemed itself obliged to pronounce the 
proceedings of the Conference of 1844, as to the Plan of Separation, a nullity from 
beginning to end; partly because the annual conferences had not adopted its recom- 
mendations, but also on larger and broader grounds, to which I shall make allusion 
in a moment? Your Honours will find that nevertheless, on page 95 of the journals 
of that Conference, (and the reference has been made to the Court,) they proceeded to 
provide for an amicable adjustment of this great controversy by arbitration. The 
Court will find there, in much detail and particularity, directions given to their agents 
to prefer an arbitration of the cause to the gentlemen representing the South, if, by 
the advice of counsel, they should ascertain that it could be legally and properly 


done ; and if it could not be legally done, they were to proceed to submit the mat~ 


ter to the annual conferences in succession, to obtain their consent. That matter 
was submitted to the annual conferences, their assent was in the course of being 
rapidly and warmly given, when they were interrupted by the institution of this suit. 
I submit, then, that it is no fault of ours that this cause comes on to be heard and 
determined here to-day under the strict principles of law and equity, instead of being 
committed to a tribunal where the strict principles of law and equity might be tem- 
pered by the delicacies of the extraordinary crisis. I have hesitated much in deter- 
mining whether or not I ought to say anything, and in what connexion and how 
much IJ should say upon the question, whether either of these parties here before the 
Court, and which of them, may be thought to be in any degree of fault ix foro con- 
Scientia, or otherwise, for the dismemberment of the Church. I am bound in candour 
to say in advance, that it seems to me to be too remotely connected, under any re- 
spect, if at all, with the real merits of the case; and yet it is so far connected with 
those merits under certain views, that I do not know that it can be altogether dis- 
pensed with as a consideration to be adverted to. This consideration is very remotely, 
if at all, connected with the merits of the case; for whether the proceedings of the 
General Conference of 1844, touching Bishop Andrew, were competent or expedient 
or not, and even if they were neither competent nor expedient, yet. beyond all man- 
ner of controversy, unless this Church was divided in twain by a body constitutionally 
competent to so transcendent an act, unless every condition of the Plan of Separa- 
tion has been performed, unless the annual conferences have in point of fact acceded 
to the recommendation of the General Conference, and rescinded the restrictive rule, 
I do not see how the plaintiffs can by possibility maintain themselves on this bill. 
On the other hand, if that Church has been divided by an authority constitutionally 
competent to so great an act, if the conditions of the Plan of Separation have been 
severally complied with by the annual conferences, then I agree that the plaintiffs 
are entitled to recover, however causeless, and however deeply and forever to be de- 
plored, however severely to be condemned by morality and by patriotism, was the 
act of secession itself. ‘Therefore, I think the Court is not called upon directly to 
discharge the very delicaté office of inquiring on which rests, mainly or at all, the 
blame in this business. Yet I hope your Honours will indulge me when I proceed 
to say that I cannot tacitly admit that the party I represent here has been in the 
least degree in fault for this transaction. 

I cannot, either as a citizen in the most private capacity, or as a professional party 


235 


in this cause, admit that this has been the result of an inevitable moral necessity. I 
do not believe in the suggestion which we find so liberally scattered through the de- 
fence, and of which so much has been said by my learned friend, that the dismem- 
berment of this Church has been the result of an invincible or an inevitable moral 
necessity. Why, excellent good reasons have been given why the Church should 
be dissolved, if not now, hereafter ; excellent reasons have been given why, on ac- 
count of the great extent of country, and the difficulty of traversing it by the itinerant 
superintendent organism, it should be dissolved ; reasons why it should be dissolved 
on account of antagonisms on the subject of slavery. Reasons have been given for 
this dissolution. So reasons may be given, and good reasons may be given, why 
everyting should be dissolved ; why the Union, the larger secular Union that embo- 
soms them all, should be dissolved ; why the solemn temples and gorgeous palaces 
of the globe itself should be dissolved. To what catastrophe the progress of events 
might have, some time or another, carried this Church, or may carry anything; to 
what sea, shoreless and bottomless, and lighted by no sun, the stream of progress 
might have borne the Church, or may bear the nation, nobody of course can be cer- 
tain that he knows. But I do submit that the dismemberment of this Church, as it 
actually happened, in the time, under the circumstances, and for the reasons, on that 
day when it happened, was causeless and needless, as well as deplorable in the 
highest degree. Is it not pessimz exempli that we should allow persons standing in 
a public capacity to trace the consequences of their own acts, and the work of their 
own hands, to the finger of Providence ? 

May it please your Honours, the will, and reason, and Christianity of one generation 
made this Church ; the will, and reason, and Christianity of another generation might 
have kept it together. One ten-thousandth part of the ability of speech and pen, 
and one ten-thousandth part of the piety, and patriotism, and morality, by which in both 
its sections it has been enriched, could have held it together ; and I say should have 
been required to hold it together, until the kingdoms of this world should become 
the kingdoms of the Ruler of kings. I do not admit then, in the first place, that there 
is no fault anywhere in the division of this Church ; and I do not admit that that fault, 
any appreciable portion of it, rests with us. 

I know the prodigious ability by which I am to be followed. I am a unionist, as 
my learned friend is a unionist, to the very last beat of my heart. I deplore this as 
few can deplore it; but it is before your Honours; I am called upon to examine it 
in the course of my professional duty. I meet it, and mean to meet it, directly in the 
face. I therefore respectfully submit :—Ist. That the separation has not irrevocably 
happened ; 2d, What has happened has not been the result of a blind and over-ruling 
necessity ; 3d. If there have been moral faults, they have not been ours. 

We cannot of course take one single step in this discussion without pausing to 
see on what ground it was that the minority in the Convention of 1844 declared their 
judgment of a necessity of a separation. We cannot advance one step, as I appre- 
hend, in the attempt to appreciate the true origin of the controversy, or the respon- 
sible authors of it,—or the responsible participators in it,—until we ascertain the pre- 
cise ground on which the minority, looking the majority in the face, apprized them why 
they initiated here in New-York the proceedings of separation which were consum- 
mated by the Convention at Louisville. 

It is perfectly clear that the main ground on which they took this step and an- 
nounced their purpose of accomplishing it, was the proceedings of the Conference of 
1844, in the matter of Bishop Andrew. That was the main, and substantial, and 
prominent ground on which they then and there declared their purpose to effect a 
separation, I know very well that now all manner of reasons are given, and may 


236 


well be given, and have forcibly been given. But it is now we hear it said that the 
country has grown a great deal too large. We hear it said now that irreconcilable 
antagonisms were being developed in regard to freedom and slavery. We hear it 
said that moral necessity has intervened and has done this work. The question 
which I put to the Court however, is, what reason the minority gave in that Conven- 
tion that day before the act was irrevocably done, whilst it was still within the con- 
trol of the majority, while they might have tempered it, receded from it, abandoned 
it, while both sides still held it under their own control a great trust for the nation ? 
The question is, I contend, What is the reason the minority then, looking the majority 
in the face, assigned for the act of separation on which they were about to enter? 
And I respectfully submit, that when your Honours come to sift that, and sift it care- 
fully upon these proofs, you will find that it rested on the action of this Conference, 
whose whole action, as I shall only have too much pleasure in showing the Court, 
down to that time, had been marked uniformly by conciliation, by conservatism, by 
a parental and equal regard to the feelings and interests and sentiments of every 
section of the country, touching the case of Bishop Andrew. ‘That was the main 
cause assigned by the minority ; and that I may leave no doubt about that, let me 
call the attention of the Court to No. 1 of the proofs, p. 97, where we find in their 
own declaration, under their own hand, the reasons assigned. One or two others are 
assigned, but I submit most respectfully, as I shall attempt to prove, that these are 
reasons of no importance at all, and that it comes at last to the proceedings against 
Bishop Andrew. ButI will read it exactly as it stands :— 


“The delegates of the conferences in the slaveholding States take leave to declare 
to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, that the continued 
agitation of the subject of slavery and abolition in a portion of the Church,” (that is 
one reason,) ‘the frequent action on the subject in the General Conference,” (that 
is two,) and especially the extra-judicial proceedings against Bishop Andrew, which 
resulted, on Saturday last, in the virtual suspension of him from his office as super- 
intendent, must produce a state of things m the South which renders a continuance 
of the jurisdiction of this General Conference inconsistent with the success of the 
ministry in the slaveholding States.” 


Laying that aside for a moment and turning to the Discipline of this newly-organ- 
ized Southern Methodist Episcopal Church, constructed, as it seems, much more 
deliberately a year or two afterwards, I find them there reciting, totidem verbis, the 
same three reasons, the leading one of which is the proceedings against Bishop 
Andrew. 

If the Court choose to pursue that inquiry a little further, I refer to the proceed- 
ings of the annual conferences of the South, which have been put in evidence as. 
among those proceedings which led to the call of the Louisville Convention, and ulti- 
mately to the separation. Your Honours will be struck with the fact, that, with the 
precision of stereotype, they repeat one another right over again, almost from New- 
York to the Gulf of Mexico. By reading in our Proofs No. 2, we find that they 
abandon every cause of separation but the proceedings against Bishop Andrew and Mr. 
Harding ; that of fourteen annual conferences, five forgot the case of Mr.Harding al- 
together, and confined themselves to the case of Bishop Andrew ; so that, in point of 
fact, it is nothing in the world but just this: That these conferences take up the de- 
claration published by the minority, drop the first two causes therein alleged for the 
separation, and lay hold upon the proceedings against Bishop Andrew, some of them 
adding to it the proceedings against Mr. Harding, and then away it goes, the mere 
echo from this city of the cry beginning here—an echo running without the vires 
acquirendum, for it loses rather than gains as it goes, until it dies in the Gulf of 


237 


Mexico. There, before the majority, and here before this Court, stand the reasons 
on which the Methodist Episcopal Church was severed by its guardians. 

I have now to ask your attention back again with a little particularity, I hope not 
too much detail, to the reasons in the declaration of the minority themselves ; and I 
proceed, in the first place, with great brevity to eliminate, to throw out, the first 
two, in order that I may, if I can, conduct the judgment of the Court to discern that 
it is Bishop Andrew, and nothing but Bishop Andrew, upon which this Church was at 
last dissolved. Your Honours will observe they give three reasons. I turn back to 
page 97. Inthe first place, they declare as one of the causes “ the continued agitation 
of the subject of slavery and abolition in a portion of the Church.” ‘‘ The continued 
agitation of the subject of slavery” in some of the Northern conferences—that is a 
reason for which a minority propose to dissolve the Church. The agitation in a 
portion of the Northern conferences, I shall show to the Court, created no more diffi- 
culty for the South, carried no more menace to the South, endangered the rights of 
the South no more than the idea that Lake Winnipiseogee up in New-Hampshire at 
the next change of the moon will overflow its banks and lay the cotton lands of South 
Carolina under the water; not a particle, not a particle in the slightest degree. To 
be sure there had been local agitation in the Northern conferences; there is local 
agitation everywhere, and the sky is not at all the clearer or the purer for it. How 
stands the fact here? I do not go beyond the proofs before the Court. How stands 
the matter of local agitation in the Northern conferences? Of course nobody supposes 
that I am here to defend it ; but I am not here to see it overstated, and such conse- 
quences as the taking down of a structure built for immortality on earth deduced 
from it, without giving our commentary. How stood that matter? Here began an 
agitation in our conferences. After having aired the local vocabulary and breathed 
through the local lungs as long as it could before it came here in 1836, it met with a 
dignified rebuke by the General Conference, and went home for a time. That was 
in 1836. It came here again in 1840, upon a petition of O. Scott and others, and 
was met in a very admirable manner, and with the same decisive result, and back it 
rolled again ; and those very petitioners, to whom Mr. Lord has referred, O. Scott and 
others, went back and seceded from the Northern annual conferences, because 
although they found them, in a certain sense, anti-slavery conferences, they found 
them Methodists, they found them Unionists, they found them true to the discipline, 
and order, and the preservation of the peace of the Church, and, through the Church, 
of the larger interests which surround the Church, if there are larger interests than 
those of the Church. ‘They seceded, and the local conferences had rest. 

I now propose to submit to your Honours that, upon a view of these facts, we have 
in 1840, and again in 1844, under the hands of the bishops themselves, reporting the 
condition of Methodism to the General Conference, proof of everything I have said, 
and conclusive proof, that although there had been some local agitation, though 
there were some exceptions to the general fact, the general condition even of New- 
England Methodism was calm, and quiet, and steady. I call your attention, in the 
first place, to an “extract from an Address of the Bishops to the General Conference 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church.” :— 


‘Tt has been the constant aim and united endeavour of your general superin- 
tendents to preserve uniformity and harmony in these respects; and, as far as prac- 
ticable, prevent conflicting action in all the official bodies in the Church. But 
although we record with unfeigned gratitude to the God of all grace and consolation, 
the general peace, and harmony, and prosperity of the body since your last session,” 
(what more can you say of the general human condition anywhere than this?) “ it be- 
comes our painful duty to lay before you some exceptions to this happy and pros- 
perous condition.” 


238 


So then the general prosperous, peaceful, and harmonious condition of the body is 
the great fact for which they thank God, and it is only the exceptions to that on 
which they proceed to observe. And our secular Union would not last long if general 
contentment, general peace, general harmony, would not testify it. If because there 
is a ‘“ Shay’s insurrection ”’ in one State, and a ripple here and there floats over the 
surface, the Union is to be taken down by the patriotism of this land, surely, surely 
it is not the creation forever which we had the dream it was. 

Let me pursue now the course of this address throughout the address, and I will 
verify from it exactly what I state. ‘There had been some exceptions, some of what 
we may colloquially call “ flare-ups,” here and there, and had met, not the break- 
water of the Baltimore Conference, but the breakwater of the General Conference, 
which had rolled them back. The bishops say there were some exceptions to this 
prosperous condition. Then they go on :— 


“‘ At the last session of the General Conference the subject of slavery and its abo- 
lition was extensively discussed, and vigorous exertions made to effect new legisla- 
tion upon it. But after a careful examination of the whole ground, azded by the light 
of past experience, it was the solemn conviction of the Conference that the interests 
of religion would not be advanced by any additional enactments in regard to it. 

“In your Pastoral Address to the ministers and people at your last session, with 
great unanimity, and, as we believe, in the true spirit of the ministers of the peaceful 
Gospel of Christ, you solemnly advised the whole body to abstain from all abolition 
movements, and from agitating the exciting subject in the Church. This advice was 
in perfect agreement with the individual as well as associated views of your super- 
intendents. But, had we differed from you in opinion, in consideration of the age, 
wisdom, experience, and official authority of the General Conference, we should have 
felt ourselves under a solemn obligation to be governed by your counsel. We have 
endeavoured, both in our official administration, and in our private intercourse with 
the preachers and members, to inculcate the sound policy and Christian spirit of your 
Pastoral Address. And it affords us great pleasure to be able to assure you, that our 
efforts in this respect have been very generally approved, and your advice cordially 
received and practically observed in a very large majority of the annual conferences, 
as will more fully appear to you on the careful examination of the journals of those 
bodies for the last four years. But we regret that we are compelled to say that in 
some”’ (exceptional, it will be perceived) ‘‘ of the Northern and Eastern conferences, 
in contravention of your Christian and pastoral counsel, and of your best efforts to 
carry it into effect, the subject has been agitated in such forms, and in such a spirit, 
as to disturb the peace of the Church. This unhappy agitation has not been con- 
fined to the annual conferences, but has been introduced into quarterly conferences, 
a made the absorbing business of self-created bodies in the bosom of our beloved 

ion. 


The bishops then go on to indicate the garb under which this presents itself, and 
then express the opinions of wise men as to its character and tendency. On page 60 
they come to the great result in point of fact :— 


“It is justly due to a number of the annual conferences, in which a majority, or a 
very respectable minority, of the members are professedly abolitionists, to say, that 
they occupy a very different ground, and pursue a very different course, from those 
of their brethren who have adopted ultra principles and measures in this unfortunate, 
and, we think, unprofitable controversy. The result of action had in such confer- 
ences on the resolution of the New-England Conference, recommending a very im- 
portant change in our general rule on slavery, is satisfactory proof of this fact, and 
affords us strong and increasing confidence that the unity and peace of the Church 
are not to be materially affected by this exciting subject.” 


So, then, without advancing a step further, it is all narrowed down to this: a sin- 
gle conference, the New-England Conference, proposes an important change in the 


239 


general rule on slavery ; that is submitted to conferences, a majority of whose mem- 
bers are actually abolitionists ; and even these conferences, a number of them—so many 
that their example is cited as satisfactory proof of the fact, that the peace and unity 
were not to be seriously affected—so many even of the abolition conferences disap- 
proved the change proposed, that the bishops are relieved, as they declare, from all 
possible apprehension of difficulty from that source. The bishops go on to say :— 


“Tt is believed that men of ardent temperament, whose zeal may have been some- 
what in advance of their knowledge and discretion, have made such advances in the 
abolition enterprise as to produce a reaction: A few preachers and members, disap- 
pointed in their expectations, and despairing of the success of their cause in the 
Methodist Church,” (surely they were the best judges of what success the Church 
promised to their enterprises,) ‘‘ have withdrawn from our fellowship, and connected 
themselves with associations more congenial with their views and feelings ; and others, 
in similar circumstances, may probably follow their example. But we rejoice in be- 
lieving that these secessions will be very limited, and that the great body of Metho- 
dists in these States will continue as they have been—one and inseparable.” 


If that continued to be the state of the Church down to 1844, I ask whether it is 
possible to attach any weight to the reason which stands first in the declaration of the 
minority in this case, that is, the continued agitation in the local Church? Now, there 
is not a solitary particle of proof in this case, that from 1840 to 1844 the local agitation 
increased in the slightest degree. In 1840 the bishops say they had substantially 
encountered and suppressed it. In 1840 they had so far suppressed it that they be- 
lieved the peace and unity of the Methodist Church was quite sure not to be seriously 
endangered by it; and that state of things, so far as there is a scintilla of evidence 
in this case to control it, remained, by the mercy and blessing of God, down to 1844. 
Yet then, when a foregone conclusion was to be adopted and vindicated by a mani- 
festo, our brethren of the South suffered themselves by habit to take up and repeat 
again the ery of local agitation on the subject of slavery in the Methodist Church. 
To show that this does not rest altogether on the mere absence of proof, on the part 
of the plaintiffs, to show that this agitation went on increasing in the meantime, I 
have the pleasure to call attention in this immediate connexion to a portion of the 
address of the very same bishops, including Bishops Andrew and Soule, and every 
Methodist bishop of 1844, to the General Conference of 1844. It is to be found on 
page 131 of the 1st of the Proofs. They are dealing with another subject, speaking 
diversa in toto, and sum up in the fulness of grateful hearts and intelligent official 
superintendents, the condition of this Church. They say :— 


“Tn this happy state of things, embracing all the essential elements of the voluntary 
principle, the ministers dependant upon the people whom they served in the Gospel 
word and ordinances, and the people united to their ministers by the bonds of affec- 
tion and esteem, the work of the Lord steadily advanced ; new and extensive fields 
of labour were constantly opening before us; the borders of our Zion were greatly 
enlarged ; and thousands and tens of thousands were brought under Divine influence, 
and joined in the communion of the Church. The events of each succeeding year 
have afforded additional proofs of the soundness of the system, and of its adaptation 
to the ends for which it was designed.” 


I submit that we show that the first reason assigned by the minority in their De- 
claration of reasons why a state of things would be produced which would render a 
separation necessary, is totally unsupported in matter of fact, and that I shall have 
no difficulty, as I believe I shall have none, in satisfying the Court that the single 
reason at last was the action upon.the case of Bishop Andrew. 

The second reason which they assign is, on the facts of the case, stranger still— 


240 


“the frequent action on that subject in the General Conference.’’ Why was it so 
much a question whether there had been frequent action on this subject in the Gene- 
ral Conference, as what that action had been? And will it not almost astonish the 
Court when they come to see, upon a review of the evidence to which I will ask their 
attention, that although the action of the General Conference had been somewhat 
frequent, yet it had been eminently—I may say admirably—all the while the most 
calm, conservative, parental, and discreet that ever marked the action of any admin- 
istrative body under any system, ecclesiastical or political, on the face of the earth; 
that it had been from beginning to end, I mean over the period to which the remarks 
of the declarant minority apply, nothing less and nothing more than an anxious desire 
to stand on the old path, to administer the old discipline, to respect every local sen- 
sibility, and to preserve the spirit of unity in the bonds of a universal peace. Let us 
see if it be not so; and for the proofs of it I need not go beyond fifty or one hundred 
pages of the evidence which both parties have united in laying before this Court. 
There had been frequent occasions for the action of the General Conference upon this 
subject, for which they were not responsible. I have already stated, in addressing 
myself to the subject of local agitation, the fact that as early as 1836 local agitators 
sent their petitions to the General Conference, asking for new legislation on the sub- 
ject of slavery. I have once read, but it is so much to my present purpose that I 
hope your Honours will indulge me in reading it again, how that effort in 1836 was 
met by the General Conference. At the opening of the Conference in 1840, the 
bishops in their address say (page 58) :— 


“At the last session of the General Conference the subject of slavery and its 
abolition was extensively discussed, and vigorous exertions made to effect new legis- 
lation upon it. But after a careful examination of the whole ground, aided by the 
light of past experience, it was the solemn conviction of the Conference that the inter- 
ests of religion would not be advanced by any additional enactments in regard to it.” 


This General Conference, whose ‘“ frequent action” on the subject of slavery was 
to lead to a dissolution of this Church, opens the series of its action, on which it is 
this day to answer before this tribunal, by resolving, as far back as 1836, that, aided 
by the light of past experience, it was their solemn conviction that the interests of 
religion would not be advanced by any additional enactments on the subject of 
slavery. They had occasion to act again. In 1840, O. Scott presented it on behalf 
of an annual conference whom he represented. About that same time, or rather in 
the interval between 1836 and 1840, our admirable Wesleyan brethren in England, 
for the purpose of showing how indissoluble the tie of Methodism always remains, 
came here, in the true spirit of an uninstructed and mischievous foreign philanthropy, 
with their suggestions upon the subject of our slavery. And again, during that 
same interval, from 1836 to 1840, some difficulty arose in one of the annual confer- 
ences as to some proceedings in Westmoreland, Virginia. On all these occasions, 
as well as on the particular occasion to which I have made reference from the bishops’ 
address of 1840, the General Conference was called upon to act. I shall not go par- 
ticularly into that subject, although it would give me great pleasure to do so, and I 
should find from it a refutation, the most brilliant and perfect, of the suggestion, that 
the frequent action on this subject by the General Conference afforded any ground 
for uneasiness or separation on the part of the South. Yet I can only leave it to the 
Court, with an earnest entreaty that in judging of these last days of the session of a 
General Conference of a united Church, they would read—I am sure as evidence it 
is important that it should be read, and as instruction on the general case, I am sure 
it is not undeserving the attention of the Court—the address of the bishops in 1840, 


241 


the reply to the British Wesleyan Conference in 1840, the report upon the proceed- 
ings on the Westmoreland petition, also m 1840; all bound in this book, a series 
entire, and making up the record of the last days of that body. I submit that the 
result is beyond a solitary particle of doubt, as I have before said that it was, emi- 
nently calm, and conservative, and just. I am constrained to say, but I say it with 
regret, that when the minority put into their Declaration the frequent action of the 
General Conference on this subject, as a reason why they should quit us, it is a rea- 
son against a parental hand, that, down to that instant had done nothing in the world 
but distribute the paternal goods, and the paternal heart, with an equal and just impar- 
tiality, upon all the objects of a common love. I strike that reason, then, out of the 
Declaration. 

The case of Mr. Harding, as your Honours will observe, is not mentioned by the 
declarants. It is not mentioned in the Discipline of the Church, South, as a case on 
which the separation was effected. I believe, in matter of fact, that it was not even 
a subject of protest in the Conference of 1844. In that very powerful paper, which 
was read so emphatically and so well the other day, which is called ‘“ the Protest,” 
there is not a word in relation to the proceedings against Mr. Harding. Therefore, 
perhaps, I need hardly pause here for a moment, even to throw that element out of 
this general controversy. Yet it would hardly do to leave it unnoticed in these 
general reasons. I do not intend to say one word upon the point of law; that I 
refer to my eminent associate. But morally, what is this Harding case? Exactly 
and merely this: There is, and has stood on the Discipline of this Church for I know 
not how many years, but nearly coeval with its origin, that if a person hold office in 
the Church in a State in which emancipation is legally practicable, he shall be sus- 
pended from his office until he emancipates his slaves. It seems that under that 
rule Mr. Harding’s was a case of having become the holder of slaves and of living in 
a State where emancipation was practicable. He belonged to the Baltimore Confer- 
ence. The Court knows that it is a settled rule of discipline of this Church that every 
preacher, under the degree of bishop, is tried by the annual conference to which he 
belongs. This gentleman was tried by his own conference, convicted by his own 
conference, and suspended durante impedimento. He appealed to the General Con- 
ference of 1844, and they approved the decision of the Baltimore Annual Conference. 
That is the Harding case. Without entering into an inquiry whether here was or 
was not a mistake ina matter of law—and I am assured that emancipation is legally 
practicable in the conference in which he lived, that it is achieved there without scan- 
dal or difficulty, although that may be a subject upon which there is divided profes-_ 
sional opinion—I ask your Honours if it be competent to the minority to stand before 
the majority, and before the Church, and before this higher tribunal, and allege such 
a trial and such a conviction as that gravely as a reason for the dissolution of such 
a union as this. Suppose it a mistake in point of fact and law. Suppose, if: I may 
take an illustration which my learned friend employed the other day not exactly in 
the same way, that a Judge of a Circuit Court pronounces a decision, it is carried to 
his brethren of the Supreme Judicial Bench, and affirmed, and thereupon a local com- 
munity becomes exasperated, and declares itself aggrieved, and is to dissolve the 
Union. Is it a case for the dissolution of the Union, admitting a mistake in fact, and 
a mistake in law? Is an exasperated local constituency an admirable judge of law 
and fact? Is that one case of a conscientious error in the judgment of conscientious 
men to shake down pillars that ought to reach the centre, and support capitals that 
should sparkle in the skies? Is that a reason which is to stand here or anywhere ? 
Would the historian of this more than Council of Trent, when he comes to write its 
history, recognise its title to be so considered? What harm did the decision in Mr. 


16 


242 


Harding’s case do anybody? Did it menace the safety of any preacher in the whole 
South? Certainly not at all. The position of the Baltimore Conference is some- 
what anomalous. My friend says, they call themselves the Breakwater Conference. 
They are on the frontier. Part of them are in free States and part in slave States. 
Their position is anomalous, their feelings intense, and their action sharply marked 
and characteristic. But every preacher in the Southern country, who stands from 
off the frontier lie, reposes in safety, as a child in arms, within the circle of his own 
annual conference. Therefore, to get up an alarm and pretend that any man’s safety 
was endangered, from here to the Gulf of Mexico or the Pacific ocean, in the least 
degree, by the decision of a local conference on the case of Mr. Harding, is simply an 
extravagance of falsehood. For the practical jadgment of this Court, the only view 
of it would be to treat it as evidence that a body of men in a General Conference—a 
Conference of which I have had the honour to say that for the last six, ten, or twelve 
years it had been building a monument of fairness, and justice, and impartiality in its 
administration at every step, and whose monument the plaintiffs have united with the 
defendants in asserting on these proofs—for the very first time in its administrative 
life, made a mistake of law and fact, and the union is to be dissolved on that account. 
God have mercy on and ‘take care of all unions, the larger and the less, if such rea- 
sons as these can be assigned for their dissolution. Nothing human can stand, no 
ordinance of man can stand if anything can be made out on such ground as this. 

Did this declaration of the majority, when they came to look their brethren in the 
face, observe and present a moral and absolute silence upon the case of Mr. Harding ? 
‘Very well, indeed, was it when the Seuthern Church came to construct their Dis- 
cipline, and prefix this manifesto of the causes of separation to the articles of their 
common and substantially sound faith,—very well’: was not everyone of them totally 
silent on the case of Mr. Harding? 

I lay that aside, and submit to the Court, with entire and perfect confidence, that 
we stand ‘this day to be judged alone for our proceedings in the matter of Bishop 
Andrew ; and if we are guilty in any degree of having contributed to the dissolution 
of this union, all that we have done—“ the head and front of our offending hath this 
extent, no more”—is the proceedings in the case of Bishop Andrew. ‘That is all. 
T now have to call the attention of the Court with great confidence, in some little 
detail, under a conscientious conviction that I have a duty not very interesting, and 
yet important to perform, to the proceedings of the General’Conference inthe mat- 
ter of Bishop Andrew, and the grounds upon which they stand. 

The first question is, what those proceedings were? For the first time in the trial 
of this case, I am going to bring these proceedings altogether under one view. I 
have not yet heard them read: altogether by anybody. ‘The first branch of them is 
to be found on p. 92, of the Ist of the Proofs, and the residue of them—quité as im- 
portarit—on p. 124. I'believe I have satisfactorily evinced to the Court, that the 
action of the General Conference on the case of Bishop Andrew, was the sole ground 
on which this secession was declared and achieved. I wish to know, whether such 
a proceeding affords the ‘least particle of justification in any aspect for secession. 
On p. 92 of the 1st of the ‘Proofs, the Conference:resolved,— 


“Whereas the ‘Discipline of our Church forbids the doing anything calculated to 
destroy our itinerant general superintendency, and whereas Bishop Andrew has 
become connected with slavery by marriage and btherticayihd this act having drawn 
after it circumstances which, i the estimation of the General Conference, will 
greatly embarrass the exercise of his office as an itinerant general superintendent, if 
not in some places entirely prevent it; therefore, 

“ Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference, that he desist from 
the exercise of his office, so long as this impediment remains.” 


16* 





243 


I proceed to p. 124, and find,— 


“ Resolved, As the sense of this Conference, that Bishop Andrew’s name stand in 
the Minutes, Hymn book, and Discipline, as formerly. 

“ Resolved, That the rule in relation to the support of a bishop, and his family, 
applies to Bishop Andrew. 

“‘ Resolved, That whether in any, and if any, in what work, Bishop Andrew be 
employed, is to be determined by his own decision and action, in relation to the pre- 
vious action of this Conference in his case.’’ 


There it is at last a whole. There at last is the deliberate and reconciled judg- 
ment of an embarrassed body acting doubtless in a case of great perplexity. The 
first question upon this proceeding would naturally be, whether or not the General 
Conference had the constitutional power to pass any such votes as these. To decide 
that, the first thig to be done is, I think, to ascertam what this vote is. This case 
of the separation and dissolution of this Church, opens with the extraordinary fact, 
about which there is no controversy at all, that this entire South has gone off ina 
body, and the hopes of the men that created this structure, so far as they have been 
disappointed, were disappointed and frustrated upon avote as to the meaning of 
which the South cannot agree, as to the meaning of which the North cannot agree 
among themselves, as to the meaning of which the South and the North are irrecon- 
cilably divided among themselves to this day, and as to which no two persons that I 
ever had an opportunity of conversing with in my life, were agreed. That is the first 
great fact in this case. They have gone off on a vote perfectly unintelligible to any 
two persons to whose judgment I have ever submitted it. As well as I rememberit, 
the old doctrine of nullification was to require that there should be no nullification un- 
less, among other things, the unconstitutionality of an act should be palpable, as well 
as very violent. It must be a palpable unconstitutionality ; and the first great difficulty 
here is, that instead of the act being a palpable unconstitutionality, it is an act unintel- 
ligible, and upon which there remains to this hour an irreconcilable diversity of opinion 
among all men. My learned friend, who preceded me, called it evasive and queer. 
If it 1s evasive and queer, it would hardly seem to be reason enough for dividing the 
Methodist Church. [think I can see many reasons why this might be termed am- 
biguous or perplex, but not why it should be designated evasive and queer, without 
any objectionable motive upon which to base the charge of evasiveness and queerness. 

The Conference was embarrassed how to act on the case. A great diversity of 
opinions had to be brought together, and to be reconciled. The case was perfectly 
old in point of principle, although novel in its circumstances. A great deal of feel- 
ing came to be developed. There was a conscientious conviction that something 
should be done. Every man prayed to God to be guided. There was a general 
conviction, that something should be done, which, while it should spare the feelings 
of an aged bishop, should be effectual, and should satisfy men in every region ; so 
that they might be able, under the embarrassment of the crisis, and the embarrass- 
ment of the moment, to put some record on the files of this Church, and yet to do no 
act of unkindness and harshness. Therefore, their action was not marked by the 
sharp and well-defined lines of tyranny. Tyranny and headlong fanaticism make 
deeper marks than these. They write their lines sharp and keen, and there is no 
mistake as to their meaning. It is because they were neither fanatics, nor abolition- 
ists, nor tyrants, but Christian men, members of a Christian Church, solicitous 
mainly to keep the Church of their love together, yet called upon to keep that 
Church together in circumstances of great and extreme character,—it was in conse- 
quence of these embarrassments, that they reconciled themselves to this proceeding. 
These considerations may not have their full influence on those who do not have to 


244 


act on such a crisis. Yet, how any man, how any minority of men, should have 
found init a casus belli of such transcendent magnitude, I am sure, on these proofs, 
I have never been able to explain. 

What is the meaning of the vote? Upon that question there are two schools, 
consisting of a million of people. All agree, in the first place, that this vote did not 
design to remove, nor attempt to remove, nor suspend, nor attempt to suspend Bishop 
Andrew from the office of bishop. I pray the attention of the Court to that to begin 
with. This vote does not pretend to suspend him from the office of bishop; it does 
not ask him to suspend himself; it does not advise him to doso. It leaves him a 
bishop as before. The resolutions to which I last called attention leave his name 
standing affectionately, not derisively as my learned brother seemed to suppose, on 
the record of the Minutes, the Hymn book, and Book of Discipline, as formerly. They 
resolve that the rule for the support of a bishop and his family still applies to Bishop 
Andrew, and that in any, if in any, work he be employed should be determined by his 
own decision, having reference to the previous action of the Conference. 

So then it is not true that they remove him from the office of bishop, or suspend 
him from the office of bishop, or advise him to suspend himself from the office of 
bishop for half a minute. When my learned brother supposes that they left him in 
such a position, that the little children in the Methodist Church, every time they sung 
their hymns, would look inquiringly for Bishop Andrew, and thus subject him to a 
good deal of pain and distress, I think he misconceives the matter altogether, and 
does not allow his own heart to judge for him in regard to it. They left his name in 
the Hymn book for this reason: that Hymn-book is one of the muniments and records 
of the history of this Church; and they leave his name init, so that whoever gathers 
the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church from this record of its biography, shall 
find that he was a bishop. The result is, if I may so express myself, that this light 
temporary cloud which came over his reputation shall be interred with his bones, but 
his fame and the name he bore should live after him. That is what is to be under- 
stood by this vote of the Conference ; not that he should be laughed at by little chil- 
dren, but that he should be honoured by generations of men and women yet to come. 

What are the two schools as to the meaning of the proceedings against Bishop An- 
drew? One class holds, that these proceedings amount to a mere opinion and wish 
that he would, durante impedimento, suspend the exercise of the duties of the office 
of a bishop, taking into consideration local excitement, having regard to the recorded 
doctrines of this Church on this matter, having regard to the ancient and general 
course and practice of the Church touching the connexion of the episcopacy with 
slaveholding. This class, both at the North and South, to this day, hold these pro- 
ceedings to be nothing more than an opinion, that durante ampedimento he should 
retire from the duties of his office, but nevertheless referring it, in the most explicit 
terms, to his own judgment and conscience, whether he would do so or not. That 
opinion is now held by many at the South; and perhaps the Court will be astonished 
when I bring it to their knowledge, that this very bishop himself, together with his 
associate and compeer, Bishop Soule, construed these resolutions as referring it en- 
tirely to his own judgment and discretion, whether he would perform the duties of 
the office of bishop ornot, leaving him as much a bishop as ever. Under that view 
of the meaning of that proceeding, his associates in the episcopacy actually did pro- 
ceed to assign him the ordinary episcopal duty in the summer or autumn of that year. 

Your Honours will find the proof of that in Book No. 1, p. 141, and Book No. 2, 
p. 86,—both documents, I believe, written by the very able and energetic Dr. Bascom, 
to whom reference has been made, and certainly written with great ability, and em- 
bodying in all its strength the gravamen of the complaints of the South. Thus we 


a 


245 


find that it is the opinion of prominent Southern gentlemen, that the entire action of 
the General Conference on this subject amounted to no more than a mere wish, 
founded upon an opinion, that he would abstain on account of a temporary impedi- 
ment, from a discharge of the duties of the office of bishop—and not from the office 
of bishop—and that was referred so absolutely to his own judgment and discretion, 
that, upon their own responsibility, they persuaded him to go to work. If your Honours 
will be kind’ enough to look at Proofs No. 1, p. 104, you will find that a portion of the 
North always held the same construction. There you find the same writer of the 
same pretty powerful protest against this proceeding, which was read the other day 
by one of the clients of my learned friend, dealing with this explanation of the matter 
by the North. He controverts it; but recognises that this interpretation exists. 

On the other hand, some regard this as a command. What sort of a command 
that may be regarded, when he who commands notifies to him, wno et eodem flatu, 
that he is expected to do exactly as he pleases, that no penalty is to be attached, in 
any form or shape, to his disregarding the command, I have not the organs to com- 
prehend. I therefore respectfully submit it was nothing, at last, but a mere dispute 
about words between the two schools ; and that it is nothing but a strong opinion, 
and an ardent, urgent wish, under the circumstances, by the Conference to the bishop, 
that he would yield to the necessities of the case temporarily, and suspend the exer- 
cise of the duties of his office, with the distinct notice, that in what work he should 
be employed was to be determined by his own decision and action, in relation to the 
previous action of this Conference inhis case. That is to say: ‘‘ Bishop Andrew, we 
have elected you to the office of bishop, and we maintain and reverence you there ; 
we appreciate a certain temporary and local state of feeling in this country, which, in 
our judgment, makes it expedient that you should yield to it, and, for the present, 
retire from the duties of your office; nevertheless, you are bishop still; you can 
survey a wider plain than we, and therefore to your judgment and conscience we 
commit it at last, and if you think your duty requires it, go on without delay and 
without pause, in the performance of every one of your duties ; we have not another 
word to add.” For that vote they dissolve this union! One might very well ex- 
claim, ‘‘ Tantene animis celestibus wre !” 

I was upon the inquiry as to whether the General Conference had the power to 
pass such a vote as this. I do not intend to stand here and consume time in discuss- 
ing that point, because if it is nothing more than the mere expression of a wish, of 
an opinion, and yet referring the matter entirely to the judgment and discussion of the 
incumbent, nobody will deny the constitutional competence of the General Confer- 
ence to pass it. I made some preparation earlier in this case, when I was stronger 
and had anticipated a different line of argument, to show that the constitutional 
power existed ; but I shall have so much to say on the constitutional powers of the 
Conference on the subject of dividmg the Church, that for the present I would 
spare your Honours and spare myself. Enough for the present to say, that if this be 
interpreted, as I think the Court will interpret it, to be only an expression of a wish, 
of an opinion, no one can stand here to deny to the General Conference the right to 
pass such a vote. They have power generally to make rules and regulations for the 
government of the Church. ‘The bishops are directly amenable to the General Con- 
ference, and is it such an impoverished body that it has not power to ask anybody to 
do something, telling him at the same time that he may or he may not do it, just as 
he pleases? It is not worth while to pursue the subject. I shall take that for 
granted, and not lose time on it, because the time of the Court is important, and my 
time, as I had proposed it to myself, presses me to other considerations. J take it 
that the constitutional power is undoubted. 


246 


The next question, then, is whether, although the constitutional power to pass such 
a vote as this is undoubted, there is here, under the forms of law, such an outrage 
upon the rights of the South, such a social injustice to the Methodists of that section, 
as to warrant the action which the South proceeded to take upon it. That is the 
result of the inquiry—the only one upon which I will further trouble the Court on 
this point. Heavily, very heavily, I submit the burden is upon the plaintiffs, to show 
that under the forms of law a real outrage has been practised upon the rights of the 
members of the Church, warranting in foro conscienti@ so transcendent and irrevoc- 
able a step as this. The burden of proof is upon the plaintiffs. I respectfully 
submit that they have entirely failed to meet it. 

In considering that question, which I intend to do somewhat rapidly, and yet un- 
der two or three different aspects, I am willing to take the matter here, somewhat 
as it was taken by the very powerful Protest of the minority in that Conference at the 
time the Conference did the act. I am going now to raise and meet the question, 
whether, in the proceedings of the General Conference touching this case of Bishop 
Andrew, my clients were attempting to introduce any substantial innovation upon 
the course and practice of the Methodist Episcopal Church, touching the connexion 
of slaveholders with the episcopacy. That is the question I mean to put—and the 
question of blame or want of blame in relation to this extremely important part of this 
great transaction, I am willing, taking the thesis propounded by that Protest, to 
meet exactly under that aspect, which party was it that was attempting in that Con- 
ference to introduce a substantial innovation into the settled, ancient, and general 
course of the Methodist Episcopal Church, touching the matter of a bishop being 
the holder of slaves? I do not mean to admit, however, that even if the North should 
be declared to be innovators, it would afford a justification for the action of the plain- 
tiffs on which I am here to observe. Still, I respecgfully submit to your Honours, 
that if you should think these proceedings hasty, passionate, and irregular, the moral 
sentiments of men and the intrinsic justice in the case make it proper enough in in- 
quiring for the first fault to ask for the innovator. I call for the innovator in the 
General Conference. Who was it, North or South, that day that was attempting to 
introduce any substantial innovation into the settled, recognised, and existing prac- 
tice of that Church upon the subject of a bishop being the holder of slaves? I re- 
spectfully submit that the North were not the innovators. I mean that in expressing 
an opinion or a wish that a slaveholder should not be a bishop, that a bishop should 
not be the holder of slaves, they were doing nothing before God but simply applying 
to novel facts the recorded Discipline, and the ancient, recognised, and immemorial 
practice of that Church since it was a Church upon the subject of electing slaveholders 
to the office of bishop. I submit that what they did, they did timorously, delicately, 
under every embarrassment, and under every desire to consult every description of 
feeling. All they did, in its whole length and breadth, was to apply to novel facts 
the recorded Discipline and ancient practice of that Church upon the subject of the 
connexion of the episcopacy with slaveholding. Let us see if that be not so. 

What was the subject of contention in the Conference of 1844 on that occasion? 
It was contended on the part of the South that a slaveholder might just as well be a 
bishop as any other man; and that there was nothing in the recorded Discipline of 
the Church, nothing in local opinion, nothing in the ancient course and practice 
of that body, that should operate even in point of expediency to prevent a slave- 
holder being a bishop, just as well as another man. On the part of the North, on 
the other hand, it was contended that having regard to a certain local opinion, to a 
great and overruling question of expediency, having regard to the established 
Discipline and settled practice of the Church, slaveholding should be considered a 


247 


great practical difficulty. That was the contention between the parties at that time. 
I know it did not arise in that general and abstract form. I know the question raised 
there was, what should be done with a person elected to the office of bishop not 
holding slaves and afterwards becoming a slaveholder? ‘This is the reason why the 
contention assumed such an embarrassing character. That is the true reason why 
such a passionate feeling was aroused. The South could not bear that it should 
be said a slaveholder should not be a bishop ; and the North thought that under the 
circumstances of the case it ought to be said a slaveholder should not be a bishop. 
Who were the innovators on that contention on that day in that Church? As I said 
before, this is not a question of right or wrong, it is not a question of wise or unwise, it 
is not a question of freedom or slavery ; but who innovated on the jural society as be- 
tween the parties in that Church? Who stood on the old code? Who innovated on 
that code? Thatis the questionto examine. I would therefore like to extricate and 
take it out of the scope of mere incidental and collateral considerations, take it away 
from the case of freedom or slavery, take it away from the case of fanaticism, and call 
it concomitancies ; and to take it and try it as the jural rights of these parties in con- 
solidating the Church, and through the Church evangelizing the nation, and keep 
it together. 

The question was on their jural rights and jural duties, according to the law of 
this society, lex societatis. Who innovated that day? and who stood on the old 
practice of the society? By that let the defendants be tried. I apprehend—I do 
not know what causes there may be underneath, I do not know how to explain the 
state of feeling on the part of the South—if I read correctly the nature of the ties, 
the fadera into which the parties relative entered, that there never was a plainer 
question presented to a Court. 

The first great fact is this: from the organization of this Church to that hour no 
slaveholder had been a bishop. “During a period of sixty years, when there had been 
nine bishops chosen, no slaveholder had ever been chosen bishop. Bishop Andrew was 
nominated by the South, and elected because he was not a slaveholder. No 
slaveholder had ever been elected a bishop in the Methodist Church. And why not? 
The question is whether we are innovators because we object to a slaveholder wear- 
ing the mitre. Why had not a slaveholder ever been elected a bishop? Clearly 
because it was the sense of the. Conferences, it was the recorded practice and sense 
of the Church; it had been notified to the North, notified to the South, constitution- 
ally promulgated ; it was the fundamental law of the Church, that a bishop was to 
be free from connexion with slavery. Was it because of a narrow emulation with 
the South? We gave them six out of nine, as we always do. It was not the 
honours that we sought. We gave them six bishops out of nine, and all we stipu- 
lated was that they should be a particular kind of bishops. And what complaint can 
there be to the vote of 1844, declaring the sense of the Conference, that the Church 
forbade them doing anything calculated to destroy the itinerant superintendency, and 
that a bishop could not hold slaves, and that a slaveholder could not be a bishop, 
when the sense of that document had been published and republished, through the 
unequivocal intimations of nine elections and sixty years? Are we then innovators ? 
Did we innovate on that day? 

There are three answers to this, and I proceed now very briefly to examine the 
three answers that can be made to it. The first is, that this very refusal theretofore 
to elect a slaveholder to the office of bishop was a social injustice, and therefore was 
more honoured in the breach than in the observance. The Protest and the proceed- 
ings at Louisville say it is a social injustice. The second answer is, that the case of 
a bishop elected because he did not hold slaves, and afterwards becoming the holder 


248 


of slaves, is not within the principle of originally electing nobody not free from 
slavery. The third and principal answer is, that in point of fact this very question 
of a bishop elected because he did not hold slaves, was a question that had been 
settled by a compromise of the parties as early as 1804. I will notice these argu- 
ments briefly, and in their order. 

In the first place, was there anything like a social injustice in the practice of the 
Church to which I have adverted—their never having elected a slaveholder, during 
such a long period, to the office of bishop, and having adopted and carried into effect 
the rule that a slaveholder should not be elected to the office of bishop? I was 
pausing to turn to a passage in the Protest of the Southern delegates, and in the 
proceedings of the Louisville Convention, in which I find that while this practice of 
never electing a slaveholder to the office of bishop is recognised as a matter-of-fact, 
it is still regarded as being in itself a social injustice. I have, however, no occasion 
to turn to these passages. The Court may remember hearing them read. The ques- 
tion whether this has properly been termed a social injustice, I submit that nothing 
is so unfounded. By a social injustice, I mean an injustice ad societatem, any injus- 
tice which is a violation of the jural right of the society, of the Church member. So 
far from its having been a long social injustice never to have elected for sixty years 
a slaveholder to the office of bishop, it was nothing in the world but the carrying out 
by the General Conference, into its own acts, that which it had laid down in the Dis- 
cipline to be the general rule for the whole Church, in the election of every one of 
the subordinate officers. 

The general rule of the Methodist Church, from the time it was instituted to that 
hour, was, that slaveholders ought not to hold office in the Church. Therefore, I 
say, this is not a social injustice, because it is nothing in the world but carrying into 
effect, in this case, by the Conference itself, that which it had prescribed in its Dis- 
cipline, and promulgated to the world, from its institution as a Church, as a general 
rule of election to every Methodist office. This general rule was always enforced, 
with a single exception of a limited local character, upon which I shall have some- 
thing to say ina few moments. Still the general rule was, that a slaveholder ought 
not to bear office in the Church. Such had been the general rule since 1784. This 
general rule had been re-enacted in 1796, in 1800, in 1804, in 1812, in 1816, over, and 
over, and over again. The general rule of the Church, as prescribed by the general 
lawgiver of the Church—the General Conference—was, that slaveholders were not 
eligible, with a single limited and local exception. ‘This law of the Church had been 
cotemporaneous with its origin. It had been promulgated over and over again. 
Every man and woman in the Methodist Church from the South had entered the 
Church with a perfect knowledge of the fact that this was its fundamental and gene- 
ral law of election. ‘Therefore, for the General Conference, in any one instance, from 
1784 down to this instant, to have elected a slaveholder to the office of bishop, would 
have been to violate in its own action what it had unweariedly and studiously pro- 
pounded and reiterated as a rule of action for every Methodist elective body from the 
birth of the Church down to that day. If it is a social injustice for a corporation to 
execute its own fundamental law, then by analogy this is a social injustice. Really, 
however, it is just as much an abuse of terms to complain of it as a social injustice 
on the part of the South, as it would be for a man to buy the stock of a railroad cor- 
poration, and then complain because they would not go into the manufacture of 
cotton ; or for a young man to pass himself through one of the colleges in the univer- 
sity of Cambridge, England, and at the end complain because, being a Protestant 
dissenter—say a Presbyterian—he could not get ascholarship. In hec focdera venisti, 
is the answer; you have entered the Church and have been its strength and its orna- 


249 


ment—would to God you would again contribute to her glory—you have been in it 
for sixty years, knowing perfectly well that, wise or unwise, liberal or illiberal, ill- 
calculated or well-calculated to maintain the Church in the South, this was its rule 
in relation to slavery ; you knew it was a rule of the Methodist Church that slave- 
holders ought not to hold office in the Church ; and now for you to turn round and 
say it is a “ social injustice’—I will leave it to the Court to say whether it is well 
warranted in point of justice between these parties. 

I had intended to read to your Honours, from the Proofs, to show the legislative 
action of this Church on the subject of slavery. But the proofs are all before the 
Court, and I will not trouble the Bench with what might be very wearisome. I have 
this to say, however: it is the recorded consistent opinion of the Church, from 1784 
to 1844, as the general law of election, that slaveholders ought not to have office 
in the Church, with one exception, of which I shall have a great deal to say in a 
moment. Your Honours will find that everywhere in the evidence. You will find it 
particularly in the address of the bishops to the Conference of 1840, and in the 
report drawn up by Mr. Bascom on the Westmoreland petition. It is there recog- 
nised as the general law of the Church upon the subject of slaveholders’ eligibility to 
office in the Church. I therefore feel that I am well warranted in putting that as 
the general rule, recognising particularly the exception of which they speak, and 
pledging myself to discuss that at even greater length than even the learned counsel 
on the other side would wish me to discuss it. 

T submit, then, so far as the substance of the contention in 1844 goes ; so far as the 
contention on the part of the North, that there were grave, practical objections to the 
connexion of slaveholding with the episcopacy, is concerned, the North were no inno- 
vators at ail. I submit they were standing on the old practice of the Church, and only 
executing a recorded act, communicated to the South, and under which everybody 
from the South had joined the Church. So then there was no social injustice in our 
having declined and refused to elect a slaveholder to the office of bishop from the 
birth of the Church. 

The next question, and it is briefly disposed of, is whether in expressing the opinion 
in the case of Bishop Andrew, which is the subject of consideration—that is to say, the 
opinion that a person who was elected because he did not hold slaves, becoming a 
slaveholder afterwards ought not any longer durante impedimento to exercise the 
duties of the office of bishop—they were guilty of any innovation. Undoubtedly this 
was the case of the application of old principles to new facts. That, certainly, made 
a slight degree of embarrassment. I agree that the case had never arisen before of a 
person elected as not being a slaveholder, becoming afterwards the holder of slaves. 
That case had never arisen before, and I might even introduce it as the first count in 
my indictment of innovation against the South, that on this occasion they would not 
allow Bishop Andrew to resign, and. thus relieve the embarrassment of the Confer- 
ence. Before I have done, I shall point to the proof of it on the record. I put this 
as a proof of innovation on the part of the South, that they thus bring before the 
Conference, and press upon the Conference, and stood before the Conference upon 
the perilous innovation of the connexion of the episcopacy with the holding of slaves. 
The question is, whether on that occasion the North met these new facts with old 
principles or new principles. I submit that the Church could not, with any consis- 
tency whatever, with its settled practice of more than half a century, and with the 
principles on which that practice had been established, have done anything but what it 
did, touching this new phase of the connexion of the mitre with the holding of slaves. 
What were the great principles which lay at the bottom of that practice, at the bot- 
tom of the recorded discipline of the Church? I understand them to be: first, that 


250 


by refusing the bishopric to a slaveholder, the evil of slavery is the more likely to be 
extirpated, which all the way down in the Discipline is one of the great moral efforts 
which this Church proposes to itself. The other reason was, that in consequence of 
excited local opinions the office of a bishop was rendered less universally useful than 
it would otherwise be. It is, as I understand, on these two general principles that 
the practice was adopted of never electing a slaveholder to the episcopal office. This 
never was made much of a point in the Conference ; and I will therefore only say in 
general, that it is perfectly plain if, under such principles as these, it had become the 
judicial law of the society, promulgated and known as such, that the candidate could 
not hold slaves, it was senseless and absurd to suppose the incumbent could hold 
slaves. If under this practice ordinary or less brilliant abilities were sometimes 
elected to the office of bishop, because they were adorned by this great qualification, 
could it be understood by anybody that the successful candidate, the moment he got 
the office, could divest himself of the very qualification on account of which he was 
‘chosen? JI submit, therefore, without taking further time on the point, that this was 
only an application of settled principles to novel facts; and, indeed, as I have said, 
‘that was not much the subject of contention in the Conference. 
I come now, however, and I have to solicit the attention of the Court to it for a 
very few moments, to the main ground upon which the South in the Conference 
did, and here do contend that the proceedings in the case of Bishop Andrew were an 
injustice to them as members of the Church; and I submit that if they make out in 
point of legal interpretation one of the rules in the Discipline—a point upon which I 
am now about to comment—as inoperative, then they fix on the North the charge of 
innovation to that extent. If they fail to make that out, then they fail on that 
charge in its full length and breadth. That ground is this: the Court must have no- 
ticed the other day, when the Protest was read in its hearing, that the whole burden 
of it, from beginning to end, was exactly and merely this—that it was too late for 
the North, in 1844, to contend that a person elected to the office of bishop because 
he did not hold slaves, afterwards becoming the holder of slaves, should not hold 
office, because, by a vote passed in 1800, and qualified or interpreted in 1804 or 
1812, the Church had, by a compromise, provided for that very case. That is the 
ground taken in the Protest. It is not argued with the ability which I am sure such 
a pen as that of the writers of the Protest could have argued it, if they had appre- 
ciated as I appreciate the difficulties attending that proposition on the part of the 
South. But this is taken for granted and made the foundation of a powerful, nay, 
upon its principles, an irresistible appeal to the conscience and reason of the 
Northren members of that Conference ; and the ground there taken was, that a certain 
rule in this Discipline, which says every travelling preacher who becomes a slave- 
holder, shall be therefore suspended from his office, provided he live in a State in 
which emancipation is practicable, means bishops as well as travelling preachers ; 
and, therefore, that the casus is exactly provided for. If that be so, I admit that the 
North were innovators on that day; for though they did not turn Bishop Andrew out of 
the office of bishop, although they did not suspend him from the office of bishop, 
although they only went so far as to express a wish that he should temporarily desist, 
yet if that case had been provided for beforehand, if the rule to which I have referred, 
by any just interpretation of it, cover the bishop as well as the travelling preacher, 
the North were wrong and the South were right, to the extent of a formal innova- 
tion—not that it would justify these transcendent consequences. On that point I 
respectfully meet the able argument of the opening counsel for the plaintiff. On 
that point I am respectfully, in advance, to endeavour to encounter briefly the argu- 
ment of the counsel, who is to close on the part of the plaintiff. I submit that if a 


251 


man’s life stood in it, and not merely the life of the Church, and through that, per- 
haps, the life of a more dear and comprehensive Union, it is perfectly clear as a pro- 
position of interpretation that the South is totally in the wrong, and that this Protest 
was ill calculated, as it was read, and always must be read by whoever reads it, to 
make an impression as it proceeds upon a mere assumption without foundation. 

Let us see now that we understand exactly what was adopted in Bishop Andrew’s 
case. It turns on the meaning of this provision, (p. 22 of Proofs No. 1,)— 


“When any travelling preacher becomes an owner of a slave or slaves, by any 
means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character in our Church, unless he execute, if it 
be practicable, a legal emancipation of such slaves, conformably to the laws of the 
State in which he lives.” 


The South contended that “ any travelling preacher,” in the clause, includes 
bishops. The North contended that it does not include bishops at all, but, on the 
contrary, by the force of the terms, by force of the language, and on grand reasons 
discriminating in the practice of that Church between the travelling preacher and the 
bishop, this indulgence did not extend to the case of a bishop, and was not intended to 
embrace it; and therefore whenever the casus did arise of a bishop becoming the 
owner of slaves ex post facto, in whatever State he lived, it was to be judged of only 
by the sense, and judgment, and conscience of the Conference itself. The question 
then is, whether the term “travelling preacher” in this law of 1800, upon the evi- 
dence before the Court, appears judicially to embrace the case of a bishop. I deny 
that there is a solitary particle of evidence for it. How is this to be tried? And by 
what kind of evidence is it to be established? The Court will notice, that in the 
Protest to which I have occasionally made references, it is stated over and over again, 
as In some measure a matter of fact within the knowledge of the writer, and the 
knowledge and belief of a portion of the protesting minority, that that law of 1800, 
as it stands written, had come to be, in 1808 or 1816, construed to embrace the case 
of abishop. There are many passages in that document wherein this is assumed as 
matter of fact. The difficulty of that argument is, that it is met on the other side by 
the most categorical and comprehensive denial of the fact. I will now read from the 
Reply of the majority of the Conference, so much as to show the Court that we can- 
not rely for the interpretation of this article, in the least degree, upon the counter 
assertions as to the matter of fact. If your Honours will look at pp. 116,117, you 
will see how flatly and decisively, as a matter of fact and memory, this assertion of 
the Protest is contradicted :— 


“Tf additional proof of the truth of this proposition were needed, it might be 
adduced in the fact, that the section which the Protest represents to have been settled 
in 1804, was not only altered at the General Conference or Convention of 1808, but 
also at the delegated General Conferences of 1812, 1816, 1820, and 1824. And 
although the Protest speaks of it as ‘usually known’ by the name of ‘the Com- 
promise Act,’ the greater part of this General Conference have never heard either 

that appellation or that character ascribed to it until the present occasion.” 


I will not read more; but if the Court will examine both documents, the Protest 
and the Reply, they will find, that while the protestants assert that this was really 
settled as a matter of fact, and allege it within their knowledge to have been settled 
as a matter of compromise, all that source of light is withdrawn by the equally 
solemn asseveration to the contrary. We are therefore brought back to a mere ques- 
tion of interpretation. That question is, whether the term “travelling preacher,” in 
the rule of 1800, upon the lights before this Court, includes a bishop or not. Does 
that mean anything but travelling preachers proper ? 

The first difficulty in the point of interpretation is, that this rule does not say any- 


252 


thing about bishop. It is, “ when any travelling preacher,” &c. It says nothing 
about bishops eo nomine. It does not say, ‘‘ when any travelling preacher or bishop ;”’ 
it says nothing about bishops. Proceeding to investigate the problem of interpreta- 
tion, the first great fact which stares us in the face is, that by the settled wsus 
loquendi of this Church, we know that, in its Discipline, “travelling preachers ” is a 
term that does not include bishops. Bishops are not included in the rule, in terms ; 
and by the usus loguendi of this Church, which construes its language, we know that 
‘travelling preacher” does not mean a bishop. To make that clear, let me turn 
your Honours to page 29 of Proofs No. 1, to arrive at the meaning of the term “ tra- 
velling preachers,” in the written language of this Church :— 


“1. The annual allowance of the married travelling, superntmerary, and super- 
annuated preachers, and the bishops, shall be $200, and their travelling expenses. 

“© 2. The annual allowance of the unmarried travelling, supernumerary, and super- 
annuated preachers and bishops, shall be $100, and their travelling expenses. 

“3. Each child of a travelling preacher or bishop shall be allowed $16 an- 
nually, &c. 

“4, The annual allowance of the widows of travelling, superannuated, worn-out, 
and supernumerary preachers, and the bishops, shall be $100. 
. ‘5, The orphans of travelling, supernumerary, and worn-out preachers, and the 
bishops, shall be allowed by the annual conferences the same sums respectively which 
are allowed to the children of living preachers.” 


So then, by the wsws loqguendi of this Church, in its Discipline, there is a differ- 
ence between travelling preachers and bishops—travelling preachers do not mean 
bishops. There it is prima facie. They have notatittle of evidence that the word 
‘‘bishop,” not occurring in the rule, the law of speech of the Church does not exclude 
bishops. 

Then I inquire how they can be included, and I look in vain for a scintilla of proof 
to support the position of these Southern gentlemen. They say this was known to 
‘‘all mankind,” and yet three-fourths of all mankind reply that they never heard of it. 
That mode of proof is excluded ; dogmatism is excluded ; and secession is excluded ; 
and these parties are brought back to the determination of this great question to their 
jural rights, to the meaning of the record ; the meaning of the record is to be settled 
by a settled law of interpretation, and prima facie that law of interpretation is 
entirely against them. 

I present now a third difficulty on the point of the interpretation of this clause, to 
show that the words here are to be taken as they are elsewhere taken in the Dis- 
cipline. I beg your Honours to take notice of one thing, which, I think, has escaped 
the notice of the reverend disputants on both sides. I am instructed, that in this 
clause of the Discipline, the lawgiver speaking is the General Conference, and that 
lawgiver is speaking to the annual conferences for their guidance and direction. He 
is not speaking to himself, and for himself, but to them, and for them. Of course, as 
the annual conferences, to whom he is laying down the law, have nothing in the world 
to do with bishops, he is not laying down any law as to the choice of bishops, but he - 
is laymg down the law to them for the election of the subordinate officers which the 
system of the Church commits to their direction. If I am right in my position, that 
the General Conference is here speaking in the capacity of a lawgiver to the annual 
conferences, and not proclaiming a mere dogma or rule for its own guidance, nothing 
in the world is more clear, than that they would not be guilty of the absurdity of 
prescribing a rule of election to the annual conferences, that should have application 
to an officer whom the annual conferences did not choose, and with whom they had 
nothing to do. I accordingly propound it and undertake to verify it, and I say the 
fact will turn out to be, that this whole series of legislation, from 1792 to 1844, was 


253 


nothing but a series of prescripts sent out by the superintending governor for the direc- 
tion of the inferior annual bodies. The superintending body would of course do this 
in advance. Why should the General Conference lay down a law for its own action ? 
It met every four years. They knew when they came to meet, at the expiration of 
the next Olympiad, as it has been happily called, they would elect a bishop under the 
general law. Therefore there was no need of putting a rule for their own guidance 
on the record. They knew also, that whatever rule they might put on the record, 
could be changed the moment they came to choose. Therefore, I say, it was need- 
less and useless for them to lay down a general rule for their own action. On the 
contrary, as they met every four years, and various annual conferences were to be 
held during these four years, and as it was needful that, during that whole period, the 
forecast of the General Conference should, by its law, be extended in advance over 
them, they made the law. And the Court will see, by looking a little at the language 
of one or two of these provisions, how exactly they all take the language of a pre- 
script by the General Conferences to the annual conferences. To show this, I will 
read from p. 21 of Proofs No. 1 :— 


“Quest. What regulations shall be made for the extirpation of the crying evil of 
African slavery ? 

“Ans. 1. We declare that we are more than ever convinced of the great evil of 
the African slavery which still exists in these United States, and do most earnestly 
recommend to the yearly conferences, quarterly meetings, and to those who have the 
oversight of districts and circuits, to be exceedingly cautious what persons they 
admit to official stations in our Church; and in the case of future admission to 
official stations, to require such security of those who hold slaves, for the emancipa- 
tion of them, immediately or gradually, as the laws of the States respectively, and 
the circumstances of the case will admit ; and we do fully authorize all the yearly 
conferences to make whatever regulations they judge proper, in the present case, 
respecting the admission of persons to official stations in our Church.” 


Again, on p. 22, you find that the annual conferences were directed to draw up 
addresses to the legislatures of the States for the gradual emancipation of slaves ; 
and on the next page that proper committees should be appointed by the annual con- 
ferences for conducting business, and soon. ‘Then I submit that this is in the form 
of a direction to the annual conferences, which have nothing at all to do with the 
bishops, not to press beyond its strength anything on the learning of this Bench. 

I submit in the next place that a very familiar rule of interpretation at common 
law, the rule as it is commonly called of denying legislation, et ad ea que frequentius 
accidunt jura adaptantur, applies directly to the case before the Court That rule, as 
stated in Dwarris, p. 730, is this: that where the words of the law imply that they may 
be satisfied by applying them to the common case, they shall not be extended by inter- 
pretation to the rarer case. The words “travelling preachers” may be satisfied by 
4he ordinary and common case, and therefore they ought not to be extended to the 
rarer case. ‘The common case in this instance, in the contemplation of the lawgiver, 
was the ordinary travelling preachers; they are elected many times by the annual 
conferences. The common case, then, was the election of the travelling preachers by 
the annual conferences. The rarest case was the election of bishops by the General 
Conference, which met once in four years. Could they adopt this rule to apply to 
them in this rare case when they might change it, or the progress of time might 
change, like a passing cloud, before the time of administering it came ? 

Leaving that point, [have to entreat the attention of the Court to another consider- 
ation of very great and decisive urgency in my mind; and that is, that there are 
reasons of a most palpable and weighty character why a distinction should have been 


254 


made in 1800 and 1804, and ever since in the Church, between the travelling preach- 
er proper and the bishop, as to allowing a dispensation to one or the other from the 
consequences of holding slaves. I mean to say that so different are the official life 
and official duties of a travelling preacher proper, from those of a bishop proper, that 
the former might very well be allowed an indulgence, which the latter could not be 
allowed: and therefore this legislation, so far as it is an element of dispensation or 
injustice, might very well apply to the travelling preacher, and by no means to the 
bishop proper. In order to enable you to appreciate that argument, I ought perhaps 
to say in advance, that this legislation, even so far as travelling preachers are con- 
cerned, is legislation in extirpation of slavery ; and it therefore proceeds by the estab- 
lishment of the general rule that slaveholding disqualifies. That is the general rule 
on the face of the written Discipline. A particular exception is allowed under 
special circumstances. Disqualification is the rule, dispensation the exception ; 
disqualification the rule, indulgence the exception ; disqualification is the general 
rule, according to the express terms of the Discipline, im the case of every officer 
below the grade of bishop; and disqualification was the general rule in the case of a 
bishop, not by the express terms of the Discipline, but by the universal action of the 
Church. Therefore, my rule of interpretation is, that in inquirmg whether or not 
“travelling preachers’ for the purpose of indulgence, embraces bishops, your 
Honours will give the utmost expansion and energy to the general rule, and compress 
the exception within the narrowest possible limits. That is a universal and familiar 
rule of interpretation. 

I submit now, that there are two reasons at once obvious and recognised, and en- 
tirely decisive, why this Court may perfectly well say; that the General Conference 
of 1800 should have been willing and felt obliged to extend an indulgence to the 
travelling preacher, which it could not extend to a bishop, but at the hazard of all 
a bishop is created todo. In the first place, there were reasons why a travelling 
preacher should be indulged, which did not apply to a bishop. The home of a Metho- 
dist clergyman is his assigned field of labour. The home of every Methodist preacher 
under the degree of a bishop is in his assigned field of labour, and his assigned field 
of labour is commonly a large circuit, but narrow, compared with the imperial sweep 
over which the episcopal duties carry the bishop. There the travelling preacher 
must live, and there he must labour ; and therefore, if he has slaves and cannot eman- 
cipate them there, it is safe and proper that he should labour without emancipating 
them, or else he cannot labour at all. But on the other hand, the field of a bishop’s 
labour in the Methodist Church, is our universal united America. His field of labour, 
under the system of this Church, is the whole of America, and therefore he may live 
anywhere in America. I am submitting to your Honours not a harangue and decla- 
mation on the subject of the episcopacy, but I hope and trust a sound interpretative 
‘argument. Therefore, I say, the General Conferences of 1800 and 1816 might very 
well have supposed that a bishop would be willing to live anywhere, throughout his 
vast and expanding diocese, that he would be willing and only too happy to be allowed 
to live where he could best discharge the duties of that great office, where he could 
best depurate, if I may so express myself, and unclothe himself of all influence tending 
in the least degree to mar the whole measure of his usefulness, where he could best go 
and put ona virtue that should approve itself to more than a local standard, where he 
could best attend to the whole beauty and protection of that holiness which should 
best recommend him to the universal sentiments and scruples of the whole Methodist 
Episcopal Church. Why, then, might not the General Conference have very well 
drawn a line of distinction on this ground between him and the travelling preacher ? 
Why might they not very well have deemed, that in taking upon himself the discharge 


> 


255 


of the new office he would relieve himself of all embarrassments? Why might they 
not have done him the honour, in advanee, of supposing that in becoming a bishop he 
would prefer to stand on the general rule, instead of sheltering himself under a narrow 
dispensation? Why might they not have presumed on the part of a bishop, as discri- 
minated from the narrower and humbler labours of the travelling preacher, that for the 
sake of holding such an office as that, for the sake of being a successor of the Asburys 
and the Wesleys ; for the sake of being a successor of those older, and better, and 
more famous men; for the sake of the privilege under Almighty God of bearing the 
glad tidings, the venerable presence and admonitions, and authoritative instructions, 
and satisfying consolations of this Church everywhere, from North to South, and 
from East to West, from Britain to Gaul, from Marseilles to Rome, from Rome to 
Antioch, from Antioch to Jerusalem,—that for the sake of these, he would be only too 
glad, I will not say to forego the luxury of slaveholding, for that might involve a 
sarcasm, which I do net mean, but, to’break away from such an impediment as slave- 
holding, that he would choose rather-to proceed instantly to place himself where he 
might soonest and most effectually rid himself of all participation m what would 
make him objectionable to any portion of his flock ; and that if he should prefer the 
other alternative, to continue to hold slaves, he should see no hardship in allowing 
the mitre to pass te another brow? Can any man, on this question of interpretation, 
stand here and tell me, that this Methodist Episcopal Church in 1800 and 1816 might 
not, on that exact discrimination, have said, ‘“‘ The travelling preacher needs a dis- 
pensation, and shall have it; but the bishop will never ask for it, and shall not have 
it.” On that ground alone, I say, there might be a necessity for this distinction. 

But there is one other reason connected with this office—and when I state it I 
shall leave this branch of the argument—and that is, that the life and duties of a 
bishop differ altogether, and in so great a degree from those of the travelling preacher, 
as really to afford a necessity for a different standard and example. I suppose that 
to the usefulness of a local or travelling preacher in the South, slaveholding con- 
stitutes no objection. It probably affords no drawback at all. On the other hand, 
this Court knows perfectly well, this whole Church and this country know perfectly 
well, that to the utility,of a bishop, slaveholding constitutes an objection of the 
gravest and most practical, not to say decisive, character. This Court knows per- 
fectly well that over large tracts and fields of his episcopal journey, such a bishop is 
but half a bishop. Your Honours know perfectly well that the itinerant superinten- 
dency of the bishop is fundamental in the practical polity of Methodism. Methodism 
may give up almost everything, but it cannot give up that. Methodism may give 
up this tenet or that tenet, and become more Calvinistic or less Arminian. But she 
would cease to have a particle of Wesleyanism upon her front, in her life, in her 
services, and in her name, if she did not.retain a superintendent episcopacy, who can 
carry the presence and counsels of that Church to the most extreme locality, however 
remote, however sectionalized by extremity of local opinion,—who can carry them 
everywhere, and be everywhere unblamed and unreproved of all men. That is of 
the very essence of Methodism. When this is dispensed with, .everything is dis- 
pensed with. Instead of stopping to prove this, as I could prove it, I will content 
myself by referring your Honours to the address of the bishops in 1844. You will 
there see that I do not exaggerate the importance of this ornament of Methodism. 
It is of the essence of practical Methodism that the bishop may go, and shall go—he 
shall go on foot if necessary, he shall go barefooted if necessary, he-shall take sack- 
cloth, he shall take the cross, he shall not go figuratively by staying home and 
sending another ; but the theory of the system, the demands of the system, the ad- 
ministration of the system, what it}has achieved for the world, depend upon this :— 


256 


that the bishop shall go and be required to go everywhere personally, from time to 
time, from one extremity of his circuit to another. What then more inevitable than 
that this General Conference of the whole Church, that recognised from the begin- 
ning the right of the South to its proportion, and more than its proportion, should 
have settled it asa rule, that he from the South who would aspire to it, must bring 
a virtue that would approve itself to more than one side of the line—a virtue that did 
not need the apology of birth-place and residence—a virtue that should come directly 
as it were of Divine perfection and character, that should be winged, created, clothed 
to be welcome everywhere, by whatsoever things are lovely, by whatsoever things 

_are honest, by whatsoever things are of good report in the sight of all men. ‘That 
became perfectly indispensable. Therefore, to tell, Northern members of such a 
Church as this that they ought to elect, that they are required as Methodists to elect 
a slaveholder to the office of bishop, or that, finding him to become such, they must 
still continue him there, is to tell them they must cease to be Methodists, to be 
Wesleyan Methodists, must dismiss themselves of an itinerant episcopacy ; in other 
words, a change of discipline, a change of faith. While they had a recorded general 
rule that slaveholders should not bear office in that Church, and while they yielded 
with the sensibilities and common-sense of men to the necessities that required a 
particular exception, they never dreamed of an exception for an hour in the case 
of abishop. I submit that the action in the case of Bishop Andrew, shows that 
the sense of the Conference of 1844 was that such an exception had never been 
dreamed of. 

Then I submit that the great North was right, and the great South was wrong, 
that day, on the question of mere innovation. I say we did not mnovate on the South 
in the slightest degree. Bishop Andrew was not tried, was not sentenced, was not 
removed, was not suspended from his office ; advice was given him, and in giving 
that advice we kept entirely within the practice of the Church, as settled upon the 
record of the Church. Suppose this were doubtful. In the name of common-sense 
and reason, was a structure like this, reared as this was, built for the offices for which 
this was built—should a structure like this have been demolished ; first, on a doubt on 
the meaning of our act ; and, secondly, on a doubt of the meaning of one of the articles 
in the creed? The future historian of that Conference will, I think, say that the mi- 
nority were in the fault in this business. I feel bound to go as far as to say that 
from what I have seen in the evidence, prodigious abilities were in that minority. I 
have seen some proofs of it from their pens. It contained men of the highest char- 
acter for patriotism, and all the qualities we love,—all that we would take back to 
our embrace if we might. But I feel bound to hold them responsible for that day’s 
work to a certain and just extent. I must say, that although there may be undercur- 
rents of which we cannot judge, for we are here in a court of law and on the proofs, 
I believe if that minority had not, among themselves, under the exasperation of the 
vote in Bishop Andrew’s case, resolved on this act, and had not thereupon thrown 
themselves into it with a passionate energy, if they had not thereupon prepared a 
circular, to which I may or may not have time to call the attention of the Court, to 
the South, not merely predicting but initiating that result, if they had not then gone 
home and delivered themselves over to that easy and yet so responsible a trade—so 
easy to such abilities, and yet so responsible for such a use of them—the manufacture 
of public opinion,—that opinion under which the annual conferences of the South 
convened, and the Louisville Convention assembled, and did the work,—I believe, 
before God, the Church would have stood fair as the moon, with all her banners to- 
day as in the day of her birth. Some locai excitement there might have been 
here and there. There always is. And it is the very use of reason to deal with 


257 


such local excitement. To what purpose these endowments of mind, and this force 
of character, but to struggle with such agitations as these! All our American war- 
fare is nothing but a war of sense and nonsense—nothing else, in the world. Some 
local excitement there probably would have been; but if fifty of these gentlemen— 
twenty-five, ten, five—had remembered that they were patriots as well as Methodists, 
and Methodists as well as patriots—if they had remembered that this Church was origin- 
ally created in 1784 for the nation of America—that it was designed by its founders that 
through and by an original unity, not merely embracing that territory, but expand- 
ing to the universal territory of the New World, through that organism Methodism was 
to work out its mission and enjoy its life—that the chief among its agents is the” 
agency of itinerancy, and prominent in its itinerancy is the office of bishop, whereby a 
bishop may travel from shore to shore, and be everywhere a father among his chil- 
dren, a presence and power equally beloved and authoritative—if they ‘could only 
have remembered that, in addition to all that was demanded of it as a Church, it was 
one of those beautiful strumentalities—how rare and indispensable !—by which the 
larger union outside, which embosoms it, was to be kept together—if they could have 
gone back under these influences, and spoken their fervent feelings and weighty 
speech to the reason of the South, that Church, Troja nunc stares, would have stood 
this day. Such is my confident belief. 

I have been looking over the proceedings of the Southern annual conferences as 
put in evidence in the case. I was about referring to some beautiful passages from 
the proceedings of the conferences in Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, and—the far- 
ther the better—Texas, which still breathe a longing, lingering love of the union, and 
which manifest the most strong and reiterated expression that they will not separate 
if they can by possibility avoid it ; thus showing that they could not tear themselves 
from the warm precincts of the cheerful day. ‘They waited for the assembling of the 
wise men of the Convention of Louisville, and waited for nothing but to hope they 
would consider that there should be no necessity for separation. The journals of our 
Conference of 1848 show you that nearer 3,000 than 2,000 have come back, and 
asked permission to be taken again into the old fold of their fathers’ and mothers’ 
baptism. I say such Methodists as these might have been kept; and heavy, heavy 
is the responsibility which will allow such delicious and priceless affections as these 
to run to waste, and water but the desert. Still heavier is the responsibility of him 
who puts out that Promethean fire which no hand may rekindle. 

Now, what was done? Did the minority of the South anywhere put on the record 
of that Conference of 1844 their opinion, that what we had done ought to dissolve 
the Church in matter of conscience and political ethics? Nothing like it; but they 
put on the records merely a declaration that what had been done must produce a 
certain state of things at the South, which would render their continuance in the 
Church impracticable. It isa very striking fact that they did not place on the records 
a deliberate declaration of their own opinion, that what the General Conference had 
done in matter of law and matter of conscience, made it proper and fit for them to 
dissolve the union of the Church. They told the General Conference that in conse- 
quence of its action a certain state of things would be produced at the South—that 
the laity of the South would be aroused, and that when they went home, if they found 
it impossible to rule the roused Methodism of the South, they would have to choose 
between ties to them and ties to us. Thereupon the General Conference said, that if 
such a casus as that should arise, they would do nothing to throw any impediment in 
the way. I have made inquiry, and I am satisfied that no member of that Conference 
—certainly, not a great majority of them—had any more idea that they were voting 
for a division of the Church, than that they were voting for a division of the State. 


17 


258 


But they verily believed that their ready manifestation of a willingness to help their 
Southern friends—if when they got home they found such an excited state of feeling, 
would help to maintain the connexion—that this would operate in some measure as 
oil on the troubled waters, and thus anticipate, and prevent in some measure, the 
catastrophe which had arisen. They adopted what has been called the Plan of Sepa- 
ration, not as a measure of division but as a preventative. Ido not think this quite 
relieved the minority from all responsibleness in that behalf. It was still their 
duty to have endeavoured to prevent a state of feeling which in the Conference they 
undoubtedly seemed to fear, and for their opinion we had great respect. Their 
counsels guided. I admire their abilities, and appreciate their patriotism, and love 
them well enough, with all my heart, to wish them back again in the same Church 
with my clients, and I do not know that I could breathe them a better wish. As to 
the act itself, if I may not call it, in the language of Mr. Burke, “the fond election 
of evil,’ was it not, in the language of the same great man, ‘the unforced choice of 
evil?” I escape with great pleasure from matter connected but remotely with the 
merits of the case, and come to those immediate merits. 

The case actually stated in the bill is very simple and very clear. The learned 
counsel who opened, states or intimates in his argument another case totally distinct 
from that stated in the bill, as I understand it, which creates some confusion in my 
own mind. Before I raise the real question which I wish to present to the Court, I 
would seck for myself a clear idea of the equity on which the plaintiffs claim. Look- 
ing, then, to the bill, the case put is exactly that a body of persons and of annual 
conferences, heretofore members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, have, by their 
own act or concurrence, and volition, under a certain Plan of Separation, separated 
themselves from that Church, and formed themselves into another totally distinct and 
independent Church. The case stated in the bill, in other words, is, that the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church has been divided in twain by a geographical line, and that they 
have attached themselves voluntarily to the Church on the Southern side of the line, 
and that this has taken place under such circumstances that they still remain entitled 
to their share of the original fund. This case thus stated in our general way is a 
perfectly intelligible one. It is a case of voluntary separation. It raises the mere 
question of the effect of such separation on the rights of the separatists to the original 
common property. But your Honours will, perhaps, have observed that, in the course 
of his argument, my learned brother perpetually kept introducing another case, not 
stated in this bill, and not before the Court, to derive from that case some aid to the 
one stated and argued. He said there were widows and orphans who were to lose 
their rights on the doctrines of this defence, without any act of their own, and there- 
upon he pressed us to know if we would put such a class of non-combatants as these 
to the scalping-knife and the tomahawk, whatever we might be inclined to do with 
the great body of the plaintiffs whom we have to encounter. In regard to that, I 
have to say, in the first place, that no case is before this Court but that of voluntary 
separatists, or those whom other volunteers have separated from the Church. If 
there are widows and orphans on the Southern side of this line, who have not volun- 
tarily separated from the Methodist Episcopal Church, or who have not been carried 
away from that Church by the acts of other persons, themselves volunteers, with 
whom they are ecclesiastically connected, then the defence which we make to the 
plaintiffs’ bill excepts such a case—and no such case is stated in this bill, or prepared 
in argument for the consideration of this Court. This bill is for voluntary separatists, 
not for those who have not participated in the act of separation; and therefore the 
defence we here make has no application to the class of people for whose title to the 
sympathies, not to say the justice, of this Court, my learned brother seemed desirous 


17* 


259 


to borrow some kind of advantage. I hardly know that I need say anything as to 
that limited and anomalous description of persons further than this. 

If the Court will look into the journals of the General Conference of 1848, to the 
action of that Conference upon petitions of thousands from the South who have 
sought to return to the body of the Church, they will see that the doctrine which we 
have there declared on record is, that everybody who has not withdrawn, or who has 
not been expelled, is still a member of this Church. Therefore, if it be true of these 
widows and orphans, or any of them, that they have not acted at all, they still re- 
main, for aught I know, within the pale of the Church; and we should be but too 
happy, so far as they are concerned, to apply the fund to them. But their case is not 
stated on the record, it is not presented in the bill, it is not argued substantially by 
counsel. To their case our defence has no application whatever. I object, there- 
fore, to my learned friend drawing to his banner, and bringing to his aid such a 
description of parties as these. He will give us leave to say, that it is hardly fair, 
although it is very skilful warfare in him to do so, to come to us at the head of some 
500,000 Southern combatants, less or more ; and when we turn round to fire upon 
them, to say, “Take care; you will kill some widow or some orphan, and these 
widows and orphans are no combatants, no marks for you.’’ Our answer to that is, 
that with that class of parties we have no encounter, and if his clients would avail 
themselves of the immunities of orphans, they had better begin by clothing them- 
selves with the innocence of orphans. It is with the voluntary separatists of the bill 
alone that we deal. 

Turning then to the case, as it is exactly stated, and taking it under its most for- 
midable aspect, that is to say, of an income for these beneficiaries, which is, perhaps, 
the most formidable and most plausible aspect in which the learned counsel presents 
the case,—and by preachers, I mean the limited description of preachers to whom 
the fund is directed,—our answer is, that they have no claim, because they have 
lost by their own act the one fundamental and indispensable qualification of continu- 
ing membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church. To maintain this, we shall 
submit, that the acts of the plaintiffs worked a simple secession from the Church, 
without lawful authority, terminating their own membership, and yet leaving the 
identity of the Church altogether unaffected. If so, we say, it can scarcely be 
denied that they have lost the right in losing the qualification. To open our gene- 
ral answer to the bill a little more broadly, if we should suppose that the plaintiffs 
had succeeded in establishing the position that they left the Church and terminated 
membership, which was the qualification under which they held the title, by lawful 
authority, leaving the original Church, in fact, in its associated identity, still we ~ 
submit that they have not carried with them a particle of right to any portion of this 
fund, principal or interest ; because, on such secession and termination of membership 
as this, it is a universal proposition of law, as we understand it, that the seceder 
takes nothing, unless at the time of secession, or before, or afterwards, the act is at- 
tended and qualified by a grant of property from a body competent to make such a 
grant. In this case we say, that even if the plaintiffs have left the Church under 
the sanction of competent ecclesiastical authority, they have no such grant of autho- 
rity : 1st. Because the General Conference had no power to make it; 2d. Because it 
did not assume the power to make it, if it had it ; and 3dly. Because both the Gene- 
ral and annual conferences together, could not take it away from the uses to which 
it was originally devoted ; the travelling supernumerary and superannuated preachers 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church remaining members in it. 

It will be convenient for me however, instead of now adverting to the fund, to ad- 
vance at once to the proposition that the plaintiffs’ act in leaving the Church was a 


260 


simple, bold, and unauthorized act of secession, unauthorized by any ecclesiastical 
authority whatever ; and, therefore, according to the universal law, as we apprehend 
it, the right of property terminated by the act of secession. 
We say, then, in the first place, that the proceedings of the plaintiffs were a simple, 
unauthorized secession, and that they leave the identity of the old Church entirely 
unaffected. I suppose it will be hardly controverted on the part of the plaintiffs, 
certainly it is entirely and perfectly clear, that independently of the proceedings of 
the General Conference of 1844, the act of the plaintiffs, and of everybody who 
participated in the proceedings of the Louisville Convention, would be a simple and 
unauthorized secession from the Methodist Church. Prima facie, I mean to say, 
that unless they shall be qualified by the action of the General Conference, called the 
Plan of Separation, the proceedings of the plaintiffs, and those with whom they are 
associated and act, work a simple and mere secession from the Church. If your 
Honours will glance at the resolutions of that Louisville Convention, as they are 
stated in the plaintiffs’ bill, p. 6, fol. 20, you will find that they in terms declare, and 
then proceed to achieve a separation from the Methodist Episcopal Church. 'They 
in terms proceed to renounce the jurisdiction of the General Conference in all its 
terms, and in all its forms, and to impede the organism through which that jurisdic- 
tion could be exerted. They then proceed to constitute the portion of the Church 
which acts in and through them into a separate and distinct ecclesiastical association 
and organization, for whose government, and faith, and discipline, and indefinite ex- 
istence, they go on to make complete and independent provisions. Now, of course, 
the effect of all this—unqualified, as I have said, by the act of the General Confer- 
ence, to the influence of which I shall have occasion to proceed in a moment—is se- 
cession and nothing else. In its effect, it is exactly as if, mstead of five hundred 
thousand persons, five persons had turned from Methodism to Presbyterianism or 
Congregationalism, and had gone off by themselves from the body. I take it to be al- 
together too clear to discuss, that the number of those who go, their continuing 
Methodism, their simultaneous organization of themselves into a Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, the farewell words of kindness with which they take their leave, and 
the protestations which we find scattered over the proceedings of the Louisville Con- 
vention, to the effect that they do not intend to separate or secede, do not control 
the matter in the slightest degree. Actions, here as elsewhere, overrule words ; 
and no protestations, and no declaration of the purity of their course can possibly ex- 
tricate their case from the influence of a conclusive presumption of law, prima facie, 
unless they can qualify it and transform it by resorting to the Plan of Separation. 
“They have deserted the Church in the boldest possible form and most intense ex- 
tent. I may perhaps anticipate, though not in the immediate course of my intended 
discussion at this time, so far as to say, that I understand it to be perfectly clear, 
according to the doctrine universally accepted on this subject, that a simple secession, 
such as this would be but for the vote and plan of the General Conference, is per- 
fectly futile to claim the property asserted in this bill, however that property may 
be holden,—whether it belonged to the society in the aggregate, or was held by 
certain of its members in trust as a charitable use for certain other members. I 
understand it to be universally holden by the jurisprudence of all civilization, that 
such a secession as this would be, upon that hypothesis, secession unauthorized by 
ecclesiastical property, and forfeits the title as a matter of course. Indeed, I sup- 
pose it is just as clear—it is one of the points which we have presented to the 
Court this morning on our brief—that, even if the secession were completely autho- 
rized by competent ecclesiastical authority, but leaving the old organism in its local 
identity, it works the very same consequences on the title. I suppose it entirely true 


261 


that if a religious association, incorporated or unincorporated, holds a fund by any 
title belonging to the society in the aggregate, or held by a part in trust for the rest, 
and thereupon a secession takes place by their consent, the seceder carries no inte- 
rest in the fund. I understand that to be universally true of all incorporated or un- 
incorporated associations. This is a common case, and we have referred the Court 
to many cases of it. In New-England, if a portion of a city or town is set off into a 
separate town, it does not carry with it any portion of the funds of the old corpora- 
tion without a special agreement to that effect. There was a strong illustration of 
it in a case reported in the 16th of Massachusetts Reports, where the old county of 
Berkshire was divided into three counties, and the legislature, inadvertently at the 
time of making the act of division, perhaps, forgot to provide for a division of the 
corporate property, and the very next legislature undertook to correct the mistake. 
In that case it was holden to be unconstitutional, as there was no provision made for 
a division of property in the act authorizing the division of the county. So that I 
understand it to be a universal proposition, that upon a secession, authorized or un- 
authorized, as the general rule, the seceder carries no property in the fund which 
before belonged to the whole association, unless his act be attended and disarmed 
of its consequences by an accompanymg grant of a share of the property by the 
competent authority. Not, however, to anticipate, but to confine myself for the 
present merely to the act of secession, to qualify the prima facie influence of this 
secession, and the consequences of that act, the plaintiffs have, of course, the burden 
of proof; and to encounter it, they invoke the vote of the General Conference, 
called the Plan of Separation. ‘That Plan, as well as I can, with all the attention [ 
have been able to give it, understand it, the plaintiffs assert divided the Church in 
two, and by some operation or other, that I am not quite confident to this hour I dis- 
tinctly understand, even without the assent of the annual conferences, it enabled 
them to depart, and yet to carry with them a portion of the original common 
fund. 

Upon this a great many questions arise; but the first to which I wish to call the 
attention of your Honours is, whether or not this act of the General Conference is not 
a mere nullity in the contemplation of ecclesiastical law, in so far as it was an act 
assuming to divide the Church under which, of course, the plaintiffs take no right. 
My first proposition is, that it is an entire and perfect nullity, for want of authority 
in the body called the General Conference to divide the Church according to the 
Methodist ecclesiastical polity. This, then, raises two general questions,—1l. What 
is the nature of the act? and 2. What are the powers of the body that did this 
act ? 

It is to be observed, in the first place, with regard to the nature of the act, that in 
in order to avail the plaintiffs in the slightest degree, it must be held to be an act 
whereby the General Conference divides the Church into two—everybody agrees it 
must do that,—and whereby it divides the Church in two, but wholly destroys the 
old association, and produces two new ones in its place. I have already indicated, 
and I shall by-and-by have occasion to submit more at length, that if the act does 
not go to this extent—if it goes no further than a mere setting off a part from the 
whole, leaving the identity of the original whole unaffected, and does not at the same 
time accompany it by a grant of any portion of the estate—then it does not avail the 
plaintiffs. Therefore, I submit, though in the bill they confine themselves to the 
mere allegation, that this act has divided the Church in two, without advancing so 
far as to say whether it has destroyed the original Church and made two new ones, 
in order to avail themselves of the act in the slightest degree, they must go that 
extent. Therefore, they must establish the two constituents of the Ovidian meta- 


262 


morphosis, not merely the forma mutata, but also the novum corpus, or their case 
fails. If, however, it does not go so far as the destruction of the old Church, and 
the production of two new ones, it is at least a division of the Church; and it is in 
that aspect of the act that I desire for a moment to consider it, and then to inquire 
whether or not this Conference had the constitutional competence to do such an 
act. 

It is, then, a division of the Church; it is so urged in terms, and is unquestion- 
ably so in every view of the case. To avail the plaintiffs, however, it must be made 
out in matter of fact that it is a division of the Church; that it divided an existing 
Church theretofore one, established to be one, organized completely, and covering 
jurisdictionally and spiritually, secundum subjectam materiam, a certain territory, into 
two Churches, separated by one geographical line running directly through the origi- 
nal territory, and each Church totally distinct, and totally independent. That is the 
nature of the act. It is not a mere dismission of a single member from the Church 
in malam partem, or in bonam partem. It is not the excommunication of a party ; 
not the dismissal of a party with letters of recommendation; it is not the calling in 
of a missionary on a lying-out frontier, ascertained to be too far distant for the prose- 
cution of his enterprise of benevolence; nor is it, as was the case between this 
Church and Canada, the dissolving of a treaty, or the terminating of a compact be- 
tween two Churches theretofore existing legally independent, but united by a tempo- 
rary tie. On the other hand, it is a division of an existing substance into two. It is, 
ecclesiastically and in fact, precisely such an act as it would be politically, if the 
general government were to-morrow to assume to divide the United States by Mason’s 
and Dixon’s line prolonged from sea to sea, and proceed to establish two indepen- 
dent nations on the different sides of the line, and then to go on indicating a plan for 
dividing the buildings, the ships, the arsenals, and the flag equally between us. May 
that omen at least be averted! It isa division, and nothing less nor more than a 
division of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

I ask the Court, before I proceed to inquire into the powers of this body constitu- 
tionally to do such an act, to pause for a moment in the still further contemplation 
of the act itself. This is a division of a Church which had existed in 1844, called 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. It was one Church. At that time it had been one 
sometime longer than these States in this Union had been one under the constitu- 
tion of the general government. Methodism, as I have read in these proceedings, 
had its birth and baptism in an upper chamber somewhere in the city of New-York, 
in 1766. Thence it spread and grew, embarrassed somewhat by the troubles that 
preceded the breaking out of the revolutionary war, and still more by the revolution- 
ary war itself, until at last, in 1784, its hymns were sung, and its fervid oratory 
spoken, in the pine woods and upon the river banks, in some seven States, and in the 
hearing of some 14,000 or 15,000 members. That was in 1784. Still, down to that 
time, it recognised a certain British tie. Its founder and its ruler was Wesley, who 
was an Englishman to the last day of his life. Its preachers were, I believe, all of 
them, down to that time, of British ordination. Its sacraments were denied to it 
through the agency of its own service, and could be enjoyed only by leaving the 
Methodist meeting, and seeking for them within the walls of an Episcopal Church 
by the English law, to which Wesley all his life, certainly as late as that period, con- 
tinued to adhere. In 1784, sympathetic with the new American national life, Me- 
thodism, the Methodism of the United States, the collective general will of American 
Methodism, expressed by the preachers and by the laity, assembled in an extraordi- 
nary Convention, for that was the true character of it, expressly on that subject, con- 
vened under a letter from Wesley recommending that proceeding, decided to form 


263 


itself into one Church—one independent and indivisible by the terms of its creation. 
The Court will see that it was expected to be a Church in and for these United 
States, that it was expected from its origin to grow with their growth, and to expand 
with their area, to breathe over their gigantic frame its spiritual culture, to contri- 
bute to their amelioration, to consolidate their unity, and to attend their various for- 
tunes through the corporate, and associate, and connected life of both. I pray your 
Honours’ attention, in this immediate connexion, to the letter under which the Con- 
ference was called by which the Church was formed. And it is very striking to 
remark how the Church, in its very origin, had a national character and a national 
tie, and might very well expect to survive and perform a series of national service 
as long as there was a Church to work or a nation to serve. 
On pp. 3 and 4 of Proofs No. 1, Wesley, in his letter, says— 


“ By a very uncommon train of providences many of the provinces of North Ame- 
rica are totally disjoined from the British empire, and erected into independent 
States. The English government has no authority over them, either civil or eccle- 
siastical, any more than over the States of Holland. A civil authority is exercised 
over them, partly by the congress, partly by the State assemblies. But no one either 
exercises or claims any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar situation some 
thousands of the inhabitants of these States desire my advice, and in compliance 
with their desire I have drawn up a little sketch,” &c. 


Your Honours will observe the exigency. In consequence of the independence of 
a new nation, Mr. Wesley advised the establishment of a Church for that nation. 
He says that thousands of its inhabitants solicited his advice, and he proceeds to re- 
commend the creation of a new Church for the new independence. He constitutes 
Coke and Asbury joint superintendents over the American brethren. By turning to 
pp. 5, 6 and 7, your Honours will observe that it is certain citizens of the United 
States, who, under this letter, they having undoubtedly formed part of the thousands 
who solicited his advice, proceed, in contemplation of the same crisis—the erection 
of a new nation to independence—to found a Church for it. I beg leave to read a 
passage from page 5 :— 


“To carry into effect the proposed organization, a General Conference of preachers 
was called, to meet in Baltimore at Christmas, 1784. Sixty, out of the eighty-three 
preachers then in the travelling connexion, attended at the appointed time. ‘At this 
conference,’ say the annual minutes for 1785, ‘it was unanimously agreed, that cir- 
cumstances made it convenient for us to become a separate body, under the denomi- 
nation of the Methodist Episcopal Church.’ ”’ 


Turning from that, I ask attention to some of the questions in the Discipline of 
1784, page 6 :— 


*¢ Quest. 2. What can be done in order to the future union of the Methodists? 

“Ans. During the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his 
sons in the Gospel, ready, in matters belonging to Church government, to obey his 
commands. And we do engage, after his death, to do everything that we judge con- 
sistent with the cause of religion in America, and the political interests of these 
States, to preserve and promote our union with the Methodists in Europe. 

“ Quest. 3. As the ecclesiastical as well as civil affairs of these United States 
have passed through a very considerable change by the revolution, what plan of 
Church government shall we hereafter pursue ? t 

‘“‘ Ans. We will form ourselves into an episcopal Church, under the direction of 
superintendents, elders, deacons, and helpers, according to the forms of ordination 
annexed to our liturgy, and the Form of Discipline set forth in these Minutes.” 


So, then, contemporaneously with the emerging of a new nation to life, a new 
Church—the Methodist Episcopal Church—by the same general agencies, or sympa- 


264 


thetic with the same general agencies, was brought into existence. In its first 
breath, it was a unit, it was one Church. The evidence that it was to be and remain 
a unity as long as it should exist is just as unequivocal as the evidence that it was to 
exist at all. There is as little dream of duality in this birthtime of the Methodist 
Church as there is of deism or pantheism. Duality is no less a heresy, according to 
the objects and original destiny of this Church, than either the one or the other. Its 
territorial extent, present and future, was meant to be perfectly defined, and ab ori- 
gine it was, and was to be co-extensive with these States. By a solemn compact of 
all with each, and each with all, that power which created that Church in 1784, who- 
ever that power was,—call it the whole body of preachers, the whole body of Metho- 
dist laity, that vast body of preachers and laity, preachers acting for the laity and 
laity for the preachers,—ordained from its birth that it should be one Church. Even 
then, it is striking and beautiful to observe, that they saw in it the promise of an 
abiding and an expanding agency, for the benefit of the nation whose members they 
were become. 

I submit that everything in the history of Methodism, everything in its origin, 
everything about it, is unity. Unity is the law of its beng. From the start every- 
thing implies, everything expresses it. Go back to its origin, and you find that from 
its birth-time till 1844, unity is everywhere. It is as frontlets between its eyes. It 
is written on every fold of its robe. It is garnered up in every corner of its large 
heart. Every one of its institutions was originally adapted to the preservation of that 
unity to the end. For the administration of local business it has local judicatories ; 
for the conduct of its general affairs, proceeding on the plan of our grand secular 
Union, it has a general body; and then, above all, is that extraordinary distinguish- 
ing and characteristic element of a grand superintending itinerancy, whereby the 
universal Methodism of America may be said to be brought together from season to 
season, in one vast creation, homogeneous and identical, to be kindled with one 
flame, to be melted in one tide of emotion, to sit down to eat and drink unreproved 
and unblamed at the same promiscuous banquet of charity. That Church, thus 
created for unity, of which unity is a part and parcel, the General Conference of 
1844, it is said, has divided in twain. Forgetting their own subordinate and admini- 
strative relations to the Church, and to the sovereign will behind, that created and 
produced it; forgetting that the grand idea of Wesley and the generation of 1784 
was, that the Methodism of these United States should work out all its ends in and 
through and by the instrumentality of a compacted and organic unity, and that when 
it ceased to be one, whatever it became, it ceased to be the original Methodism of 
Wesley ; forgetting that its essence was itinerancy, and through itinerancy a whole 
nation was meant to be kept within a single fold; I will not say, forgetting their 
duties as patriots and as men, but, as it seems to me, with great respect, miscon- 
ceiving those duties, and showing themselves for the moment, a little unequal to the 
forbearance, and self-control, and humility which the hour demanded, and which enno- 
bles more than it degrades any man—forgetting these, this General Conference 
divided this Church in two as coolly as a mathematician would draw a great circle 
on a wooden globe. It was divided in an instant, even as if a child were cut through 
the head and heart to compose the dissensions of stepmothers. 

I know that a great deal of ingenuity has been employed by my learned and able 
friend on the other side, to prove that all the Methodism has not been divided. A 
great deal of pains has been taken to show that Methodists, whoever they are, and 
wherever they are, are one body. I believe some poetry has been printed, to the 
effect that although mountains rise and rivers roll between nations of Methodists, still 
a certain tie of Methodism unites them at last. I submit that that is nothing at all 


265 


to the purpose ; for after all, this forgets entirely that the Methodism of 1784 was the 
Methodism that was to exist, and act, and do its work, only through and by means 
of an organic unity ; and when that organic unity is cloven down, and that structure 
destroyed, it is in vain to say that, though unity is gone and the Church is dead, 
Methodism is alive. Why, suppose the National Government to-morrow should di- 
vide these States into two independent nations, or thirty-one, or thirty-two, or five 
hundred independent nations, I suppose about the same absolute quantity of demo- 
cratic liberty might remain and lift up its voice all over this land. I dare say, inas- 
much as a certain tie is said to connect us everywhere, we should still retain a tie of 
connexion with one another till, through a series of affliction, and struggle, and strife, 
we had been fain to take refuge all of us beneath the Dead Sea-of despotism, just as 
we are connected with patriot Hungary and patriot Poland, and other patriotic falls. 
I dare say the same quantity of republicanism would be left ; but this national unity, 
through which our liberty was achieved—this constitutional unity—where would it 
bet Just exactly where the Methodism of 1784 went when the Church in which it 
was embodied, and through which it was to act, was destroyed by the act of the 
Conference. 

The question now is, whether the General Conference had the constitutional 
authority, under the ecclesiastical polity of Methodism, to make such a division as 
this. We utterly deny it ; and I feel an extreme anxiety to bespeak in advance the 
indulgent attention of the Court to the perhaps very tedious historical argument, to 
some extent, by which I am now about to endeavour to establish that proposition. I 
submit that they had not a particle of authority, under the ecclesiastical polity of 
Methodism, to divide the Church at all. The question might perhaps be avoided on 
the part of these defendants, for, as I have said, according to a view of the act on 
which we shall much insist before the argument shall be concluded, even if it had 
power to divide the Church, he who retires takes no fund with him, unless by a spe- 
cial grant. But the question lies in that. It is one of a great deal of interest, and 
a right determination of it, which we shall be sure to have from the learning of this 
Bench, will, in my humble judgment, do something to conduct these parties back 
again, which I personally certainly very much desire. 

It is common to say, and it is said in the case cited the other day from Benj. Mon- 
roe—a case which I brought with me, as it is the one which discussed this subject— 
that there is a sovereign and ultimate power in all bodies competent to destroy it. 
There must be, it is very common to say, some power to dissolve the Union; there 
must be a power somewhere competent to dissolve a corporation, a firm, to dissolve 
the Church, to dissolve society itself. This may very well be so; and this was an ar- 
gument which was very much pressed by my learned brother, in adverting to a great 
variety of circumstances which might occur, in the progress of events, to render a 
division of this Church expedient, and perhaps necessary. But then it does not fol- 
low that any specific body in a given polity is the organic depository of this transcendent 
and fatal power. Whether any specific body, as the General Conference, has it or 
not, or whether such a body itself is a mere subordinate or administrative function, 
depending on a higher and secret sovereign will, is a question in every case of his- 
tory and of law. That is a question in this case as applicable to the General Con- 
ference. 

Somewhere, I may admit, the power must exist. It must exist, if your Honours 
please, in the General Conference, or in the sovereign will which created the Church 
behind it ; but whether in one or the other, is a question of law and of history—a 
question of ecclesiastical law to be illustrated by the history of the Church—a ques- 
tion of ecclesiastical law upon the polity of Methodism itself. I have drawn out 


266 


with some care a proposition which I shall endeavour to maintain, in regard to the 
powers of the General Conference. Our proposition is, that the General Conference 
in the Methodist Episcopal Church, whenever, as in 1844, it is called and assembled 
in its ordinary course, under its ordinary and appointed designations of meeting, is a 
mere administrative body of the Church. It is, and always has been, the superin- 
tending legislature, judiciary, and executive of the Church, created and existing to 
administer its affairs from time to time, and for that purpose durante vita to make 
rules and regulations for its government, and provisions for its unity, and growth, and 
good; but it was a subordinate agent, a servant of the Church itself. It never was 
the original creator of the Church. Sitting in its ordinary capacity, and under its 
ordinary call, it never represented the sovereign power which created the Church ; 
it never was made to be the destroyer of the Church ; and it has never had, in any 
era, more power to dissolve or to destroy the Church than the General Government 
has to-day to divide the Union by a line of partition drawn across it from Hast to 
West. The Methodist Episcopal Church itself was created in 1784, by an extraor- 
dinary and special Conference, convened for that precise purpose, under a letter from 
Wesley, and in accordance with the universal wish of Methodism, lay and clerical, in 
the United States. That Conference created the Methodist Church for the whole 
United States—created it to be one, to exist forever, or while such Churches exist 
upon the earth. When that Conference had done its work of creating the Church, 
it retired, disappeared, and has never again been assembled in the history of Method- 
ism. By virtue of that act of creation, the Methodist Church has existed ever since, 
and will exist until another Conference called for the purpose, representing and em~ 
bodying the will of the real sovereign—that is, universal Methodism as a whole— 
shall decree its dissolution; and long, late, and distant may that be. After this 
Church was created, it had, and necessarily must have had, administrative bodies, 
through which im various spheres to carry on its daily business. Such are the officers 
of the Church, such are the annual conferences, such are the quarterly conferences, 
and such is, or such at least was in 1792, the General Conference. These, all of them, 
are subordinate, executive agencies of the principal, the constituent—the Church. 
When they are called together in the ordinary way, and under the ordinary call, they 
have none of them any more power to destroy the original sovereign creator and con- 
stituent than an attorney employed to execute a deed of land has power to shoot his 
principal through the head. Such is our proposition. I now have respectfully to 
ask the attention of the Court to the general outline of proof by which I shall endea- 
vour to establish it. I have stated it as it applies to every one of the conferences, 
and to every one of the eras of the General Conference. For the discussion I must 
to some extent follow the example ef my learned brother, and consider the General 
Conference as existing in the Methodist Church before 1808 and after 1808, which is 
the period when it became strictly a representative body, called the General Confer- 
ence ; and under that division I mean to submit these two propositions: in the first 
place, that the body called the General Conference, meeting in its ordinary course, 
and under no extraordinary call, instructed to do or consider no specific or extraordi- 
nary act, did never, even before 1808, have power to divide the Church, or any analo- 
gous power, but was strictly an administrative body, existing to govern a Church 
which another distinct body had previously created ; in the second place, I mean to 
say that even so, its actual administrative powers were reduced to some extent in 
1808. I shall first consider the earlier eras and first proposition. 

To know what the General Conference prior to 1808 was, what it was created, and 
what it was authorized to do, I shall have to treat the subject somewhat historically. 
The history of the Conference before 1808 lies precisely in these few facts. I will 


267 


present the facts to the Court as I suppose them to exist, and call your Honours’ at- 
tention a little more in detail to the evidence. The history of the Church before 
1808 stands on these facts, and these alone. First, the creator of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in 1784 was not a General Conference meeting in the ordinary 
course, but it was a power totally distinct from, and other than, any General Confer- 
ence that was ever convened. It was an extraordinary body, such as never assem- 
bled before or since, convened under the apostolical letter of Wesley, the real father 
and founder of Methodism in America, for the express purpose of considering on the 
organization of a Church for a new nation, composed of all the travelling preachers 
en masse, and not of a representation or delegation, acting in execution of a strong 
and general demand of the laity for a Church that could administer its own sacra- 
ments. That is my first historical proposition. 

2d. After this body had created the Church, it separated to appear de facto no 
more. 

3d. After that attempt there was not, and there never had been, such a thing as a 
General Conference, with any recognised character, and duties, and powers, known to 
Methodism in this country; and there never was a General Conference called by 
that name, and with known and recognised powers, until the year 1792. Advisory 
bodies, under the name of regular conferences, had been called by the general 
assistant before, but with no power of deciding in any instance against his voice. 

4th. This convention extraordinary which made the Church, did not provide for 
any General Conference then to exist in it at all for any purpose, but it set it going 
with an administrative economy made up of various administrative agents, variously 
subordinate—bishops, annual conferences, quarterly conferences, and on one occasion 
a body called a council. So it continued to exist till 1792, without any General Con- 
ference in it, or about it, or recognised by it at all. 

5th. After some years’ experience of these administrative agencies, in 1792 a 
General Conference developed itself. The proper mode of expressing it, perhaps, 
would be to say that the General Conference was the last and most perfect in the 
series of mere administrative agencies. The General Conference from this time 
down to 1808 was never endowed with a particle of power to dissolve the Church, 
with a particle of analogous power, with a particle of power to do one act which the 
bishop had not done by his own regular conference. So it existed down to 1808, and 
at that time these administrative functions, such as they were, were actually reduced 
instead of being enlarged. In other words, I shall say when I come to present the 
proofs of it a little more fully, that it merely developed itself and took the place of 
the bishop and his advisers, and had exactly the same power to dissolve the Church 
which the bishop had, and not one solitary particle more. I beg your Honours’ par- 
don for occupying so much time in the narration of the five great facts which com- 
pose the history of that period; and now pardon me if I trespass a little further to 
return and endeavour successfully to establish them. 

Who, then, created the Church organization? That, I suppose, is the first question 
in an inquiry like this. Of course I need not say that it was no such General Con- 
ference as this that existed in 1844—that is, a body of delegated representatives, for 
no such Conference had before 1808 existed at all. Ishould say, before I proceed to 
adduce the proofs on which I rely for it, that the creator of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church was an extraordinary body, such as had never assembled before, called for a 
convention—under the name of ‘“‘ The General Conference,”’ it is true, but composed 
of all the travelling preachers, not of a part of them selected by the annual or the 
quarterly conferences, or otherwise, of the whole body of the preachers en masse. 
This body assembled under Mr. Wesley’s letter of invitation, in accordance with the 


268 


general and strong demand of the laity of the country for a separate organization, 
and for a Church capable of administering its own sacraments. That convention, 
thus composed, and thus called in obedience to such a demand, created this Church. 
The true sovereign then, I submit, the true sovereign by which alone it was created, 
and by which alone it can be destroyed, may be said to be the preachers in a mass, 
acting in obedience to the wishes of the people, through the advice of Wesley, and 
upon their own judgment of expediency, utility, and duty, and convened (I must not 
allow to be forgotten for an instant) for the express purpose of doing that very 
work. So that it was, in a remarkable degree, as distinguished from any General 
Conference that ever sat before or ever convened afterwards, analogous to the con- 
vention that created the Federal Constitution in 1787, and the various conventions 
which from time to time have been assembled to create the various constitutions of 
the several States. That body was the true creator of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. It may be variously stated, but every mode of statement is equally decisive 
for the use to which I would hereafter endeavour to apply it. It may be stated that 
the true creator of the Church was the general and collective will of American Me- 
thodism, acting through the laity and through the preachers. Or it may be said that 
it was the collective will of American Methodism, expressing itself and acting 
through an extraordinary convention, called under a letter of Mr. Wesley for that 
express purpose, which did its work, and then disappeared. But, however it may be 
denominated, I submit that I am right, in an abbreviated and general way of stating it, 
in saying that it was an extraordinary convention called for that express purpose, under 
the name of a General Conference, but not in the least degree resembling any Gene- 
ral Conference convened before, or any General Conference that has been assembled 
from that hour to this. It was a great ecclesiastical convention of the Methodists of 
America. 

This brings me to the consideration of a question of some importance, and that is 
this :—it may be said that, inasmuch as the body creating the Church assembled un- 
der the name of a General Conference, therefore, wherever we find in the history of 
the Church, a body sitting under the name of General Conference, it may be pre- 
sumed to have all the powers and to be clothed with all the authority, with the same 
transcendent powers, with the original convention. In other words, the argument 
may be, that whereas this body, which I have called an extraordinary convention, 
really assembled under the name of General Conference, therefore, whenever you 
afterwards find a body in the Methodist polity assembling under the same denomina- 
tion, it is fair to presume that it assembles for the same general ends, and is clothed 
with the same transcendent powers. Now nothing can be more erroneous than this ; 
for the second historical fact, to the proof of which I am now about to ask the atten- 
tion of the Court, is, on the contrary, exactly this, that at that time, 1784, when this 
body assembled, there existed no such thing as a General Conference in the Metho- 
dist Church with defined and recognised character, or with any character or any 
powers whatsoever ; so that this body was not only new, but was exactly and merely 
a convention of creation and of independency, no less and no more. That is the 
second fact, and to prove it, I shall have, perhaps, to take a little more time than I 
desire. 

Before 1784, then, there was nothing in the Methodist system in this country un- 
der the name of General Conference, or with any recognised powers of any descrip- 
tion, even to make rules and regulations for the Church. I think important conse- 
quences flow from this fact, and I shall therefore take pains to see whether it is 
controverted on the part of the counsel for the other side, and if it be controverted, I 
shall proceed to establish it by the histories of Methodism, if they are admitted for 


269 


the purpose; if they are not admitted, I shall content myself with stating what I 
understand and am satisfied the historic fact really is, and then to say that the 
plaintiffs have the burden of proof on this part of the cause, and they are to evince 
the contrary if they maintain it. 

It is true then, that from 1773—that is the first period to which I go back—there were 
occasionally convened by the general assistant of Mr. Wesley in this country, a body 
under the name of regular conference, for the purpose of advising the assistant upon 
the administration of the affairs of the Church. That first began, as far as we can learn, 
in 1773, which is perhaps a date not unimportant for your Honours to bear in mind. 
That body, however, was simply an advisory body, and it must be perfectly clear that 
it had no power, on any debatable matter at all down to 1784. And, extraordinary as 
it may seem, the fact is indisputable that the general assistant, who convened it for 
his own advice, after he had heard a matter debated, decided it for himself indepen- 
dent of the conference. Such continued to be the state of the case from 1773 to 
1784. As to the proofs of this, I should begin first by referring to the History of the 
Discipline, page 10, where we find some allusion to a conference of 1773 ; but I feel 
bound to say that for the complete exhibition of the evidence on this point, I shall 
desire to refer to Dr. Bangs’s History of the Methodist Church, which I suppose to be 
an authoritative and satisfactory account of these proceedings, and which fully sup- 
ports the statement I have had the honour to make. I would turn your Honours’ atten- 
tion in the first place, to 1 Bangs’s History, page 342, for the general statement that no 
such thing as a General Conference, by that name, ever existed in this country until 
1792. I refer to it merely in proof of a fact which is really very well established in 
the History of the Discipline itself, that, down to 1792, there had been no General 
Conference at all. Until 1773, there seems to have been no sort of conference at 
all. For the purpose of showing the Court that when after that time, between 1773 
and 1784, the general assistant called regular conferences, they were advisory only, 
and had no powers to pass on any debatable matter at all, I refer to 1 Bangs’s History, 
pages 131 and 132. That passage is of so much pertinence and importance, that I 
shall pause to read it. He is writing the History of 1779 ; he has not yet arrived at 
1784, but this is subsequent to the calling of these conferences. What he says, 
therefore, throws light on their power :— 


“These resolutions were adopted at the conference held at Judge White’s, in the 
State of Delaware. It seems, therefore, that they were not in the habit at that time 
of determining debatable questions by a majority of votes; but, in imitation of the 
practice of Mr. Wesley, after hearing all that could be said pro and con, the presiding 
officer decided the point.” 


In confirmation of that fact, and for the purpose of showing how it probably had 
its origin, I will make two references to different parts of the History of the Disci- 
pline, and then leave the subject. In 1773, History of Discipline, page 10, it is re- 
corded that— 


“‘At the first conference held in Philadelphia, June 1773, the following queries 
were proposed to every preacher :— 

“ Quest. 1. Ought not the authority of Mr. Wesley and that conference to extend to 
the presen and people in America, as well as in Great Britain and Ireland? 

Ans. Yes.” 


So that the real truth of the matter is, that by an ordinance of the first conference 
of 1773, the proceedings of subsequent conferences and Methodist denomination in 
this country were subject to the determination of Mr. Wesley’s conferences in 
Europe. Therefore it came to pass exactly as the historian had recorded it, that 


270 


down to 1784, these bodies were nothing but advisory bodies, without any power to 
decide a matter which was debatable. I will not trouble your Honours with any 
further references or citations to establish that proposition. I think it will not be 
controverted. 

Now it follows from this that the body which in 1784 created the Church was, as 
I have denominated it, a new and extraordinary body, called for a new and extraor- 
dinary purpose, and under a new name in that Church; because, as I have shown, 
down to that time a General Conference had never existed, and the regular confer- 
ences that existed had been advisory bodies, without the slightest power of determina- 
tion. 

The next important fact is, that this body, which thus created the new Church, 
then retired, and did not create or provide for any General Conference at all, even to 
administer its affairs. This is a fact of very great importance, and when I come by- 
and-by to apply it to an important problem, i.e., with what powers the General Con- 
ference of 1792 came into existence, I think it will be found to throw very great light 
on that inquiry. The fact is, that this General Conference of 1784 did not create or 
provide any General Conference even to administer its affairs; but on the contrary 
it seems to have assumed that the administration would be carried along very well 
by the annual conferences, and quarterly conferences, and the officers of the Church. 
In point of fact, therefore, there was no General Conference in the Church to do any- 
thing under any name. The amount of the matter is, that this extraordinary conven- 
tion made it at first, set it in operation, with a bishop, and with annual conferences and 
quarterly conferences to advise him as to its administrative economy. Therefore 
your Honours will see that the General Conference of 1792, which is relied upon as 
starting all at once into existence with power to destroy the Church, did not origin- 
ally even come into the contemplation of the plan for creating the Church and pro- 
viding for its administration, for it started, and began, and proceeded eight years 
unattended and unaided by a solitary particle of administrative agency, except its 
bishop and its annual and quarterly conferences, and for a very brief period a body 
called a council, to which I shall call attention ina moment. This fact is not con- 
troverted by anybody. Everybody agrees that no General Conference existed until 
1792. What was the administrative economy of the Church during this time? A 
bishop at its head, quarterly conferences and annual conferences, that is to say, local 
assemblages called from time to time by the bishop to give him advice, composed the 
entire administrative economy of this Church, from 1784 to 1792, and in the contem- 
plation of its creators seems to have been thought likely to be enough for the Church 
in all periods. The bishop from time to time in these annual conferences, and in 
these quarterly conferences, and in his regular conferences, if he chose to call them, 
conversed with them on changes of Discipline which he proposed to introduce ; and 
if he found by that consultation that his changes would be likely to be acceptable to 
the body of the Church, of his own authority he changed the Discipline. That was 
so for eight years; and those were what we should usually call the first and purest 
years of the Church, inasmuch as they were those which immediately succeeded its 
creation. Nay, so little was a General Conference thought of by the generation 
of 1784, that in 1789—I will show it from the historian to whom reference has been 
made—it was mutually taken for granted that a General Conference was entirely im- 
practicable, and therefore, by way of adding a new administrative agency to the 
Church, and for the purpose of collecting the general will of the Church more easily 
and more completely, the bishop actually projected the measure of a council, 7. ¢., a 
small body that should act and confer with him. That proposition was adopted, and 
for some time that body and the conferences, annual and quarterly, and the bishop 


271 


made up the whole administrative polity of Methodism. Let me call your Honours’ 
attention to this administrative economy as I find it in 1 Bangs, page 302—a very 
instructive chapter, as I regard it, for more purposes than one, as I hope to have 
strength enough and voice enough to make the Court understand before I am through. 
He says, speaking of 1789 :-— 


‘“‘ Having thus noticed the progress of the work of religion in different parts of the 
country, let us return to the doings of the conference. In consequence of the exten- 
sion of the work on every hand, spreading over such a large territory, there were two 
difficulties which arose in the way of proceeding in the manner they had done here- 
tofore. 

‘“‘1. It was very inconvenient for all the members of the conference to assemble 
together in one place to transact their business. Hence, as we have already seen, the 
bishops had appointed several separate conferences for the despatch of their ordinary 
affairs. 

“‘2. But anything which was done in these separate conferences was not binding, 
except simply the ordinations and stationing the preachers, unless sanctioned by them 
all. And as this could rarely be expected, constituted as human nature is, it was 
plainly seen that there was danger of their falling to pieces, or of their having divers 
administrations. 

‘To provide against this evil, and to remedy the inconvenience above mentioned, 
it was determined this year, as the best thing which could be devised, to have a 
council, for the reasons and purposes, and with the powers set forth in the following 
questions and answers :— 

“«¢ Questions. Whereas the holding of General Conferences on this extensive conti- 
nent would be attended with a variety of difficulties, and many inconveniences to the 
work of God ; and whereas we judge it expedient that a council should be formed of 
chosen men out of the several districts, as representatives of the whole connexion, to 
meet at stated times ; in what manner is this council to be formed, what shall be its 
powers, and what further regulations shall be made concerning it ?’” : 


The Court wili have been struck, I am sure, by the recital of the impracticability 
of holding General Conferences to collect the general will for the administration of 
ordinary affairs. Therefore the idea of a council develops itself. The answer to 
the question then is :— 


“ Answer. 1st. Our bishops and presiding elders shall be the members of this 
council ; provided, that the members who form the council be never fewer than nine. 
And if any unavoidable circumstance prevent the attendance of a presiding elder at 
the council, he shall have authority to send another elder out of his own district to 
represent him ; but the elder so sent by the absenting presiding elder shall have no 
seat in the council without the approbation of the bishop, or bishops, and presiding 
elders present. And if, after the above-mentioned provisions are complied with, any 
unavoidable circumstance, or any contingencies, reduce the number to less than nine, 
the bishop shall immediately summon such elders as do not preside, to complete the 
number. 

“¢ Qdly. These shall have authority to mature everything they shall judge expedient. 
1. To preserve the general union. 2. To render and preserve the external form of 
worship similar in all our societies through the continent. 3. To preserve the essen- 
tials of the Methodist doctrines and discipline pure and uncorrupted. 4. To correct 
all abuses and disorders; and, lastly, they are authorized to mature everything they 
may see necessary for the good of the Church, and for the promoting and improving 
our colleges and plan of education. 

“« 3dly. Provided nevertheless, that nothing shall be received as the resolution of 
the council, unless it be assented to unanimously by the council ; and nothing so as- 
sented to by the council shall be binding in any district, till it has been agreed upon 
by a majority of the conference which is held for that district.” 


This council, thus and then and upon that policy created, existed but a little while ; 
but as it was really the prodecessor of the General Conference proper, and was the first 
large or general administrative body ever collected under the new Church, I believe 


272 


your Honours will be inclined to say the child was the father of the man in this 
instance. And when you come by-and-by, when we arrive at 1792, to inquire with 
what scope of power the General Conference then met, you will regard as a fact of 
extraordinary importance, not to say decisive interest, that it was immediately prece- 
ded in this very line of development of administrative agency by a bishop’s council 
intended to collect the general will. There will not be a particle of doubt left on the 
mind of any fair historical inquirer, that there never was the least intention, from 1792 
to 1808, to clothe the General Conference with a scintilla of authority more than was 
given to the bishop’s council. It is for that reason, that I have somewhat solicitously 
called the attention of the Court to the powers and objects of the council, as they are 
stated in Dr. Bangs’s History. The first is, to promote the general union. They 
were not creating a body to provide means for facilitating the destruction and disrup- 
tion of the Church, but simply and solely, when, after having provided a series of 
administrative agency that had worked well, outgrowing its infancy, the Church de- 
manded something more, this further administrative agency was provided, to collect 
the general will more easily, and do greater service. Then and for that purpose, to 
meet that exact want, this council was devised and introduced. It was tried for a 
brief space of time, and then abandoned, and in its stead was substituted the Gene- 
ral Conference. But I submit that there cannot be a particle of doubt that it was 
intended to have, and did have, through its brief period of somewhat unpopular exist- 
ence, the very same work to do, and did the very same work, nothing less and nothing 
more, which the General Conference which assembled in 1792 did. ‘Therefore I 
hope I shall be excused for reading again the powers of the bishop’s council, that 
you may see whether the Methodists at this time were carving, and whether they 
were anything more than carving out, a mere series of devices for a more perfect 
Christian and associated life, which the old convention of 1784 organized, and organ- 
ized to exist. ‘The powers of the council are :— 


“1. To preserve the general union.” 


Not to destroy the Methodist Episcopal Church, but to preserve the general union 
of the Church, simply and solely by enabling this wide-spread community to concen- 
trate their wills upon the administration of its affairs from day to day. 


“«2. To render and preserve the external form of worship similar in all our societies 
through the continent. 3. To preserve the essentials of the Methodist doctrines and 
discipline pure and uncorrupted. 4. To correct all abuses and disorders ; and, lastly, 
they are authorized to mature everything they may see necessary for the good of the 
Church, and for the promoting and improving our colleges and plan of education.” 


This council I have said was unpopular. The next fact we find is, that in 1792 the 
first General Conference ever convened in America under the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, assembled. We find all at once, in 1792, that it had been ordained by the 
constituent body, by the Methodism of the country, that from that time forward such 
a body should assemble once in four years, for the same purpose and clothed with the 
same powers. Now the problem is, with what powers, and for what purposes, the 
constituent creator and sovereign of 1792 all at once wakes up and ordains that there 
shall be in the Methodist ecclesiastical polity, from that time forth, a General Confe- 
rence, assembled, and sitting, and doing its work every four years. I submit that 
prima facie we have established, that the only purpose for which the constituent body 
could have all at once called a General Conference into existence, was for the pur- 

‘ pose of enabling it to act as a body of mere administrative power, and with no power 
at all beyond it. The sovereign will in 1784 had made the Church, and set it in ope- 
ration, and left it to carry on its practical life by officers and annual and quarterly con- 


273 


ferences. For some time these answered that purpose very well. In the progress 
of events it was found that a council would be a convenient addition to the existing, 
appointed series of administrative devise, and thereupon a council was created ; but 
nobody will pretend, that in creating a council they meant to go beyond the creation 
of a mere administrative body, with no more power to dissolve the Church than the 
bishop had. That body was unpopular, and did its work but for a little time. Then 
comes the General Conference. Prima facie, I submit that the very date of its birth, 
the very order in which it comes into existence in the series of administrative agen- 
cies, the very fact that the great want of the Church at that time was not a power to 
destroy, but a power to administer, the very fact that the Church was already cre- 
ated, and set going forever, shows that the General Conference came into existence 
as an administrative body, and an administrative body alone. This is the inference 
the historian would make, if he were to inquire into the matter independent from this 
controversy. This is the inference, I think, which this Court will make. It actually 
was created to be, and became to be, just what we should infer from the historic 
facts—the time when it came into existence, the order in which it stood, and was pro- 
bably designed. I have a right to stop here, and call on the counsel on the other 
side for a particle of proof, that the prima facie inference is not the true inference in 
regard to the character of the General Conference. I call upon them now to 
exhibit to the Court one solitary scrap of proof, that the General Conference of to-day 
possesses a particle more power than the bishop’s council of yesterday. I press 
them on the historical question. If it were a question on the history of Rome, to be 
illustrated by a Niebuhr, or by a Neander on the history of the Church, I respectfully 
submit that it is perfectly manifest as a solution of the historical problem, having re- 
gard to the dates and series of events and the demands of the Church, that at the 
time the General Conference came into existence, it was just exactly what the 
bishop’s council had been, what the bishop had been, what the annual and quarterly 
conferences had been—administrative functionaries, but neither creators, nor de- 
stroyers, nor participators in a particle of that transcendent power. I call then on 
the other side. for a historical deduction ; and I have only to submit, and I demand 
judgment for the defendants in this case on it, for it puts an end to this controversy, 
that the plaintiffs have not furnished your Honours with a solitary particle of proof, 
to show that the powers taken by the General Conference exceeded those which I 
have been attempting to present. 

Then where is the proof tocome from? There are only two sources of evidence. 
They may, in the first place, call attention to the Discipline of 1792, to find there 
written a code defining the powers of the General Conference. It is silent on the 
matter. There is not one word in the history of the Church, not one word in the 
written constitution, showing with what powers the constituents, in 1792, intended to 
invest this body at the time it was called into existence. 

Then we are driven to the other source of inquiry. How are we to ascertain the 
powers possessed? By looking only at the powers which it put in exercise. The 
Court are, therefore, simply on these proofs, which the parties on both sides lay before 
them, to see if the General Conference, from 1792 to 1808, ever dreamed, so far as 
its powers and intentions can by possibility be conjectured, that they were clothed 
with a solitary particle of power beyond the authority possessed by the bishop’s 
council, which preceded it. On the contrary, the General Conference went on in 
the path of the bishop’s council and the annual and quarterly conferences. We find 
it going on, in the same useful, but well-defined and comparatively humble path of 
mere administrative service. We find it here and there making changes in the Dis- 
cipline of the Church, and those not considerable changes. I submit that not one 


18 


274. 


act of a higher degree of power was done in this period, and that nothing was done 
by the General Conference, from 1792 to 1808, which had not been done over again 
in the period which preceded it. Therefore, unless the learned counsel are prepared 
to say, that the bishop’s council, before 1792, could have dissolved the Church, the 
plaintiffs have not presented a scrap of evidence that the General Conference, after 
1792, could dissolve the Church. 

The only answer I heard suggested to this by my learned brother was, that this 
Conference must have had all power to dissolve the Church, because it was com- 
posed of allthe preachers. Because it was composed of all the preachers, did it neces- 
sarily have power to destroy the Church? On the contrary, I suppose the question 
is exactly this: With what powers, and for what purposes, do the preachers appear 
to have decided, all at once, to introduce and establish a General Conference? That 
is the question. The question is not, whether all the preachers, assembled under a 
special call for that purpose, might or might not, at any period before 1808, pull 
down the Methodist Episcopal Church. That is not the question. The question is, 
for what purposes, and with what powers, they decided, in point of fact, that they 
would at once introduce, and make part of their regular polity, a General Conference ? 
We do not advance one solitary step to the solution of that, by being told that all the 
preachers were members of that Conference. Suppose they were. The very last 
thing they might have dreamed of on earth would be all at once to set going a body 
that should have power to destroy the Church. They might have introduced such a 
General Conference beyond all doubt; but the question is, whether they did so in 
point of fact. For the proof of that we have to go back again to the language of the 
constitution of the Church, in which there is not a word about it from beginning to 
end. 

I therefore submit, with very great confidence, at least so much as this, that the 
plaintiffs have entirely failed to show that even before 1808 this General Conference 
could ecclesiastically work a division of the Church. There is an utter failure to 
show it in point of fact. Wedeny it by our answer. The fair result of the historical 
investigation seems to be that they did not possess it; and unless it be held that be- 
cause the preachers might have clothed it with all powers, they necessarily decided 
so to clothe it, there is a total failure, as far as I can see, of this part of the plaintiffs’ 
case. 

The hour of adjournment having arrived, the Court adjourned until to-morrow 
morning. 


SEVENTH DAY.—Tvespay, May 27 Tu, 1851. 


Mr. CuoaTe resumed,—May it please your Honours, if, on this review, or any 
review of the history of the Church, and of the Conference of 1792, the Court should 
be of the opinion that it is a probable inference that that Conference came into existence 
as a mere body of administration—the last and ripest of the series of administrative 
agencies—then the case on this point is ended. If your Honours should only doubt 
on that question, the case on this point is also ended. If, however, you are of opi- 
nion that it has been clearly and certainly established as a proposition of historical 
fact, by the proper species of evidence, and the requisite degree of it, that this Con- 
ference, ab origine, was clothed with these extraordinary powers, then we have 
arrived at the question, whether or not the same extraordinary power was bestowed 
upon the representative General Conference created in 1808? This is a mere matter 
of intent. It all turns on the single inquiry, and that, I think, is not extended and 


18* 


275 


not difficult, whether the constituency of 1808 intended, as a matter of intent, to 
clothe the General representative Conference, which it then, for the first time, brought 
into existence, with a power to dissolve and destroy, by dividing the Church. For, 
I take it that it is a universal and elementary proposition, that the powers of a 
representative and delegated body are exactly what the constituent creator meant to 
give it—no less and no more. I take this as a universal and elementary proposition, 
running throughout all agency, as between parties of substitution, of representation, 
of delegation, from the broadest to the narrowest, that the intention of the constituent 
defines and measures the power of the delegate. While this is true, undoubtedly, 
throughout the law of agency, in a general way this is recognised to be true by every 
school of politics in its application to the highest departments of government under 
the constitution. Even they who hold that the representative is not to be palsied by 
the will of his constituents, place themselves on the broad, general, original ground, 
that the constituent, by the act of creating the representative function, at first intended 
to clothe the representative, as a matter of intent, with the power and to devolve on 
him the duty of acting from time to time, of acting upon his own independent judg- 
ment, unaffected by the occasional interposition of the irregular and uninstructed will 
of the constituent. So that I believe I may submit it as a doctrine universally 
accepted, and everywhere applied, that the will of the constituent is the limit and the 
measure of the power of the representative. 

Turning, then, to this transaction of 1808, in search of the intention of the consti- 
tuent, I do not know that it is not enough for me to say that I can discern no trace 
of an intention to confer such power. Your Honours will find the history of that 
transaction on p. 13 of Proofs No. 1. You will there find that the constituent body 
began, in the first place, by composing the new representative General Conference, 
and then, in article 5, on the same page, it proceeds to define the power which it 
intends to confer. The language is simply and exactly—‘‘ The General Conference 
shall have full power to make rules and regulations for our Church.” 

Now, resting there, and not advancing to the subject of the restrictions by which 
this grant of power is presently to be limited in a very important degree, I must say, 
that I discern no evidence that this bestows the capacity of destroying or dividing 
the Church at all. On the contrary, what it seems to me I find the constituent body 
doing is exactly this: The Methodism of the United States had long before decided 
to become, and to be one Church; had, by a paramount and fundamental law, 
ordained unity as the form of its organic being; and here, in furtherance and exe- 
cution of that ordination, it goes on to create a body which, under certain restrictions 
and limitations, shall make rules for the guidance of the affairs of that unity thus 
previously created, existing and intending to exist indefinitely. I deduce this as all 
that the constituent body intends to do in the first place, from the nature of the act 
that he is doing, and from the character of the actor that is doing it. What is the 
act being done? And who is the actor that does it? An existing Church, already 
a quarter of a century old, created by the general Methodism, for a life all but per- 
petual on earth, having an existing government, is found simply amending a single fea- 
ture of that government. It is found to be doing nothing less, and nothing more, than 
altering the third article in the Discipline of the Conference which preceded it. I now 
respectfully submit that from the act which is being done and the actor who is doing 
it, from the nature of the act and the actor, the indefinite future existence of the 
association is properly assumed as a thing beyond controversy, and aliunde estab- 
lished and settled; and therefore the implication is simply this—that whereas here 
is a Church, to exist long, if not forever, and to its administration and government a. 
General Conference is needful, they proceeded to constitute such a General Confer- 


276 


ence, with power to make rules and regulations for it during its whole life. That, I 
submit, is the implication which inevitably results from the nature of the act and the 
character of the actor. However broad are the terms in which the power is bestowed 
upon the General Conference, it is all at last to be considered secundum subjectam 
materiam—it is all to be taken back, and rendered ad hoc and ad rem. It is to be 
considered at last, however broad the terms in which it is conveyed, as an auxiliary 
and administrative power alone. Why, is it not so throughout the whole range of 
analogous law? A power of attorney may be conveyed in language the broadest, 
putting the agent, apparently in all things, in the condition of the constituent—but it 
only means at last that he shall have power within the specific agency, and for that 
particular constituent. A partnership makes an agent with the amplest authority, 
but he is not to dissolve the partnership; his powers are to be taken to be for the 
partnership, and under the partnership, and in aid of the partnership ; he is not to 
alter the identity of his constituent, or put an end to his civil life. A corporation, to 
pursue the same analogy, creates a board of directors, with power to make rules and regu- 
lations, and by-laws, for the corporation. Would any body suppose they had power 
to dissolve the corporation and surrender its charter? Why, of course, the consti- 
tuent was not dreaming of a dissolution. He reserved all that power and all that 
subject-matter to his own control; he expects to live a corporate immortality, and on 
that idea he hires a servant to enable him to live while he lives. 

I deduce the same conclusion in the next place from the language in which this 
power is bestowed upon the General Conference. ‘They are ‘‘to have full powers to 
make rules and regulations.” For what? For Methodism? Certamly not. For 
Wesleyanism? Certainly not. Rules and regulations for the promulgation and 
spread of Methodism by the destruction of the Methodist Church? Not at all. But 
‘rules and regulations for our Church’’—affectionately and specifically—rules and 
regulations for Methodism through our Church, through and by that specific instru- 
mentality. They are to have power not to make rules and regulations for the 
destruction of the Church, but for the Church. That is to say, they shall rule it, it 
being all the while an existing thing. Who could possibly mistake such language 
as this, if it were found in any other connexion, or on a question anything less than 
the momentous one which now engages this Court? If we found the phrase “rules 
and regulations for our firm,”’ “rules and regulations for our corporation,” would not 
everybody understand, as a matter of course, that it meant rules and regulations 
whereby “our firm,” undissolved, ‘‘ our corporation,”’ undismembered, should go on, 
and order its existing and identical life ? 

I had not the honour to be present and hear the commentary made the other day, 
by one of the learned counsel on the other side, upon a case from 1st Peters, which, 
I believe, is to be cited and commented upon. It is founded on language in the Con- 
stitution, supposed to be somewhat analogous to the grant of power to the General 
Conference, but which, I think, the learned and eminent counsel must admit to be 
substantially unlike. I will not pause to comment on the language of the Constitu- 
tion, but my learned friend knows that the subject-matter of the “rules and regula- 
tions” referred to in the Constitution, makes all the difference in the world. Con- 
gress is to have power to make rules and regulations for the territories. What is to 
be done with territories? Instead of being preserved in an existing and inflexible 
identity, the territory is to undergo a thousand changes. It must undergo a thousand 
transformations before it can reach and achieve the grand uses for which it has been 
spread out westward. It must be cut in two; it must be made into lots; it must 
be built up by the hand of man; it must be broken up into plantations and into 
States, and then, at last, it reaches its ultimate destination. Rules and regulations 


277 


for the territory of the United States, I submit, imply necessarily that they are to be 
rules and regulations that are to attend it through a thousand metamorphoses, enlarg- 
ing, diminishing, changing, until it reaches its ultimate destiny. The Church, on 
the other hand, is a perfect identity at the beginning ; to translate into English a 
familiar expression, it is “a fact accomplished ;” it is intended to exist until the end 
of time, enlarging and beautifying itself, if you please, but its identity forever unaf- 
fected, and all for an ulterior and specific end. Before I leave the argument, which 
I do not intend to extend, and on which I have only entered and generally indicated, 
of the intention of the constituent body in 1792 and 1808, to bestow a power of de- 
struction, I should like to ask my learned friends on the other side, if, in the course 
of their researches, they have found any breaking out of a dira cupzdo for destruction 
in the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and whether or not, beginning in 
1784, and coming down to 1792 and 1808, they find men’s thoughts began to be 
directed to the importance of facilitating the means of breaking the charmed unity, 
and converting the Church into two, or two thousand; because, I admit, that if they 
can find historical evidence that the Methodist mind was taking such a direction as 
that, we should be led the more readily to anticipate that this intention was carried 
out by lodging such a power of destruction in the bishop’s council, or in the Con- 
ference of 1808. So far from that being the case, however, is it not most striking 
and beautiful, that the very preamble by which the Constitution of 1808 was ushered 
into existence—I have it here in 2 Bangs’s Hist., p. 229—solves this problem, and 
answers the question which I have referred to my learned friends? Before I read 
that preamble, let me remind the Court that the very problem which we are now in- 
vestigating is, whether that constituent body was then about lodging in the General 
Conference a power to destroy the Church. The preamble is :— 


«Whereas, it is of the greatest importance that the doctrine, form of government, 
and general rules of the United Societies in America, be preserved sacred and invio- 
lable ; and whereas, every prudent measure should be taken to preserve, strengthen, 
and perpetuate the union of the Connexion.” 


Therefore do they on that policy proceed to clothe a body with power to 
destroy the Church? Certainly not. Before I leave this matter, I wish to 
notice another topic, and the subject of the restrictions on the power of the 
General Conference. I have thus far been considering it, independent of the 
restrictions, upon the general ground of power. I respectfully submit, as I take 
my leave of this part of the argument, that if any doubt existed, it is removed by 
the language of these restrictions. My learned brother was pleased to say, that 
there was no prohibition in these restrictions against dissolving and destroying the 
Church. I respectfully submit, that that is because no grant of power had been 
previously given or dreamed to be given, which could be supposed capable of being 
tormented into a power to divide the Church. But I meet my learned friend beyond 
that suggestion, by inquiring how we shall possibly account for it, that an assembly 
of intelligent men, not to say men fit to be out of Bedlam, should have set them- 
selves to work, more like the philosophers of Lilliput, than the intelligence and 
character of a great denomination like this, to restrain, as they have done here in 
half a dozen articles of restriction, the exercise of powers comparatively subordinate, 
and leave so tremendous a power as this unrestrained? how they should sedulously 
and laboriously prohibit by all manner of man-traps and springs, the cutting off of 
this leaf or that twig, and yet leave the party entirely at liberty to pluck up the 
noble tree by the roots? In the humour of restraining, would they not restrain the 
larger and more formidable power? If, as the historian tells us, to preserve the 


278 


unity of the Church, they thought it needful so anxiously to guard its Discipline 
from change, the rules of its societies from change, the plan of its episcopacy from 
change, would they leave power to make a direct attack on unity itself? 1 submit, 
that the inconsistency of such a proceeding refutes the argument. Look at it. The 
General Conference shall not have power to alter the articles of religion, but they 
may alter the Church; they shall not change the creed, but they may kill the 
believer; they shall not alter the Discipline, but they may create two Churches or 
two thousand Churches, every one of whom may go off; as I read in the newspapers 
the other day,—I hope it was not true,—that they had already in South Carolina altered 
that very Discipline in face of the Discipline which was produced before this Court ; 
they shall not deprive an individual member of his right of trial and appeal in this 
Church, but they may send them off by thousands and thousands without trial; they 
shall not so alter the plan of episcopacy, as to say toa Northern bishop, ‘ You 
shall only go to Mason’s and Dixon’s line on your way South,” and to the Southern 
bishop, ‘‘You shall only go to Mason’s and Dixon’s line on your way North,” but 
they may with great constitutional propriety say to the Northern bishop, ‘‘ When you 
go to Mason’s and Dixon’s line you shall find no Church beyond it,” and to the South- 
ern bishop travelling this way with scrip and sandal, ‘You shall find no Church 
north of it.” I respectfully submit, that such inconsistencies as these could not 
possibly have been entertained and embodied by men fit to represent the grand con- 
structive intellect of Wesley, and perpetuate a system, giving him a fame among 
the builders of mitres. 

So much for the law of 1808. Is any light thrown on this interesting inquiry by 
what has happened since 1808? Now there are only three occasions on which any- 
thing has been done which anybody supposes throws any light on the subject of the 
inquiry. They are,—lIst, the Canada case; 2d, the action of this very body in 
1844; and 3d, the action of our own body in 1848. I begin for a moment or two 
with a few words on the Canada case. 

I respectfully submit, that the Canada case affords evidence perfectly conclusive 
to show that they had not this power in point of fact. What was this Canada case? 
It was this exactly. The Methodist Episcopal Church from its origin was created 
by the Methodism of the United States, in consequence of the independence of the 
United States, in and for the United States alone. Expansive as they have been, 
the Methodist Church, from the nature of its constitution, and in point of fact, 
although the very day it came into existence it spread itself to the limits of the 
territory of the United States, yet it has never exceeded, and it could not exceed the 
limits of that territory for a hair’s breadth. It may go up to the line; it may meet 
on the other side of the line a separate and independent Methodist Church, and they 
may shake hands across the line; they may organize by agreement or compact a 
connexion, but there it ends. ‘There it is, and there it will remain, nothing im the 
world but an American Methodist Church in league or in treaty with a foreign and 
equally independent Methodist Church on the other side of our frontier line. That 
is the condition of the Methodist polity. I deduce it from the letter of Wesley, who 
says, that in consequence of the unexpected independence of this nation, he gives it 
a separate Church. Wesley, as everybody knows, through important periods of his 
life, clung fast to the old Church of England, and left it with reluctance. He be- 
stowed the boon of a new Church upon American Methodism with reluctance, and 
he limited the precious grant by the necessity of the case, and that necessity, blessed 
be God! was a pretty ample and energetic necessity in American independence. 
He gave it no further than the limits of the United States. 

The same thing is proved by the fact that the Church was created by American 


279 


citizens, The Conference of 1784, which I denominated an extraordinary conven- 
tion, that created it, was a conference of American preachers alone, and no work 
created by their hands could proprio vigore, or by its probable destination, have ex- 
istence without the United States. Your Honours cannot, I think, fail to remember 
that significant recognition of the political interests of these new United States, 
which they bring forward into the very constitution of the creation of the Church, 
their measure and their end, ultimately subordinate to the greater ends they had in 
view. ‘The Methodist Church then was a Church for this land, it was a Church for 
all of it : but let that pass. 

While this is true, Methodism from the beginning recognised the beautiful enter- 
prise of missions, and therefore it had always been in the habit of sending its mis- 
sionaries, hy their own consent, into Canada. There they met a germ of North 
American Methodism growing up in Upper and Lower Canada. An acquaintance 
was matured, and at last it came to pass, that the Canadian Methodist Church con- 
ceived a desire to be connected, by such ties as they thought appropriate to such 
jurisdictions, with the larger and more prosperous Methodism of the United States, 
Thereupon, as your Honours will find recited on every page of these proofs which 
contains the history of the Canada case, a compact was made, an agreement was 
entered into, a league was concluded; and the result was, not that the Church ex- 
tended itself to the North pole, or to the line of perpetual congelation, not that it 
extended beyond its territory, but that it filled up to the territory of the Canadian 
Church, and that Church occupied the region beyond, and the two then and there 
meeting, formed this league and brought themselves under that well-known rule of 
law recognised, I believe, in 2d Denio, that two Churches entirely independent of 
each other may voluntarily conclude a treaty of union, which shall leave their iden- 
tity perfectly distinct, as the sweet and bitter fountains that flow together without 
mingling, and which union either may terminate without schism, with or without 
the consent of the other. That was exactly in ecclesiastical law, as I understand 
it, the condition of these Churches. As it seems not, as a statement of fact, to be 
entirely appreciated or admitted to be correct on the other side, I shall presently 
call the attention of the Court to the proofs from which I gather it. I shall find 
them on the recitals of the gravest and most deliberate action of the General Con- 
ference, and I apprehend the Court will receive them as the very highest historical 
evidence upon a historical inquiry of fact. Such was the transaction. 

In that state of things time passed on, and the nationality of the Canadas came to 
be a little more developed. The political interests of the two countries, which 
Methodism always recognises, and which I commend to her special care to-day, led 
to a necessity for separation; and thereupon Canada applied for a separation of the 
connexion. Now we come to the constructions of that case. Notwithstanding 
such had been their relations, although this had not been an identical and homoge- 
neous Church extended by fusion over a common territory, but two Churches iden- 
tically distinct, connected simply by a conventional tie, yet when the Canada Con- 
ference came here to apply for a dissolution of the connexion, the first judgment of 
the General Conference was, that it exceeded their constitutional powers to grant it, 
and they thereupon proceeded to announce a set of doctrines, after great deliberation, 
which give to the winds the assumptions of the hasty and ill-considered proceeding 
of 1844. In the first place, it was reported by a committee to which the subject 
was referred, that it was beyond the constitutional power of the General Conference 
to grant the request in the form in which it was presented. On pp. 34, 35 of Proofs 
No. 1, your Honours will find, that the committee on Canada affairs, to whom the 
subject was referred, reported :— 


280 


“ The committee are unanimously of the opinion, that, however peculiar may be 
the situation of our brethren in Canada, and however much we may sympathize with 
them in their present state of perplexity, this General Conference cannot consistently 
grant them a separate Church establishment, according to the prayer of the peti- 
tioners. The committee, therefore, recommend the adoption of the following reso- 
lution :— 

“1. That, inasmuch as the several annual conferences have not recommended it to 
the General Conference, it is unconstitutional, and also, under the circumstances, 
inexpedient, to grant the prayer of the petitioners for a separate Church establish- 
ment in Upper Canada.” 


The extreme anxiety felt in relation to the matter, and the very kind acquaintance 
that seems to have been entertained, led the Conference to hold the matter under 
consideration ; and there is very satisfactory evidence to show that it was thereupon 
subjected to the best lights in that Conference, and after several days of deliberation, 
it was discovered that the peculiar relations between the two Churches, the fact that 
they did not constitute one single homogeneous and identical Church, but a league 
between two independent Churches, afforded a source of power, and indicated a 
means of escaping from the difficulty. Therefore we find, on page 35, that the fol- 
lowing resolve was adopted, on the motion of Mr. Ryerson. This is the second stage 
to which the deliberations of the Conference conducted them :— 


‘«¢ Whereas the Canada Annual Conference, situated in the Province of Upper 
Canada, under a foreign government, have, in their memorial, presented to this Con- 
ference the disabilities under which they labour in consequence of their union with a 
foreign ecclesiastical government, and setting forth their desire to be set off as a 
separate Church establishment ; and whereas, this General Conference disclaim all 
right to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction under such circumstances, except by mu- 
tual agreement :— 

“« Resolved, therefore, by the delegates of the annual conferences in General Con- 
ference assembled, that the compact existing between the Canada Annual Confer- 
ence and the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, be, and hereby is, 
dissolved by mutual consent.” 


Ineed not say this would be most extraordinary language as applicable to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church dealing with one of its outlying conferences. I need 
not say it would not be competent, because it would not be historically true, in such 
a case, to talk of a ‘union with a foreign ecclesiastical government,” or of a union 
existing by means of a “compact” voluntarily entered into. Why, the union which 
binds the Methodist Episcopal Church, its identity and organism, is a union de- 
rived from the original act of creation, not something done first, and then that which 
was first created forming a succession of leagues with various annual conferences ; 
but wno et eodem flatu, by one and the same creative act, by the ordinance of the ex- 
traordinary Convention assembled under the letter of Wesley, the Church instantly 
existed co-extensively with the land, and thenceforward every annual conference, 
then existing or ever afterwards to exist, came into being, not by virtue of succes- 
sive compacts, but under and in obedience to the original plan of growth,—they were 
nothing less and nothing more than successive developments according to the origi- 
nal organic law. 

I should not care, for the purposes of this discussion, whether the Conference of 
1828 had or had not left the Canada case with the passage of the resolution which I 
have read. What do they say by that resolution? “That they have power to dis- 
solve the existing Methodist Episcopal Church? Nothing like it; but they say, on 
the contrary, “‘ Whereas we have not the constitutional power to do what we first 
thought was something resembling it, after a week’s study, and a week’s prayer to 


281 


God, we have found out a legal method by which we can grant the prayer of the 
petition, and yet abstain from doing anything resembling, in the least degree, a divi- 
sion of the Church; for we have discovered that it is not one Church which is to be 
cut in two, but only a union between two that is to be divided, and we therefore do 
it.” How different that is from the power of dividing an existing identical Church 
let one illustration suffice to show. I suppose to-day the general government, with 
all its power, cannot divide the Union that is committed to its care ; but I suppose it 
very competent, indeed, for the general government, by its appropriate organ, the 
treaty-making power, or the legislative power, acting under its commercial authority, 
to put an end to a treaty with England, or with Austria. Therefore, it is not com- 
petent for my learned friend to argue that because this Conference have put an end 
to a treaty with another Church, they have the power to divide their own Church. 
But the sober second thought of the Conference of 1828 did not dare to leave the 
matter rest exactly there, and after some more reflection it was discovered that even 
to go so far would perhaps be to go too far; and, therefore, you find its ultimate 
opinions on this question, the result of a great deal of thought, of a great deal of 
conscientious and charitable desire to grant the request, at last embodied on page 37 
of Proofs No. 1. The resolution on which I have been remarking was rescinded, 
and the ultimate determination of the Conference embodied in these words :— 


“« Resolved, by the delegates of the annual conferences in General Conference 
assembled, that, whereas the jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States of America, has heretofore been extended over the ministers and mem- 
bers in connexion with said Church in the Province of Upper Canada, by mutual 
agreement, and by the consent and desire of our brethren in that Province; and. 
whereas this General Conference is satisfactorily assured that our brethren in the 
said Province, under peculiar and pressing circumstances, do now desire to organize 
themselves into a distinct Methodist Episcopal Church, in friendly relations with the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States; therefore, be it resolved,” 


That if Canada will dissolve the treaty, we will send her a bishop, and assist her 
in organizing for the new ecclesiastical life on which she will thus have resolved to 
enter. 

There it is exactly. I think no historical and legal inquirer can doubt that the fair 
construction to be gathered from the Canada case is, that it denies the power to dis- 
solve or divide an identical Church, and the first impression of the Conference was 
that they could not sever a treaty between them and an independent Church, and after- 
wards they thought that could be done, but ultimately they receded from even that pro- 
position. That is the whole of the Canada case. I shall refer to it for a moment 
hereafter, when I come to its bearing on the property question, but I have addressed 
myself to it now, only as it might be thought to throw light on the judgment of the 
Conference as to the existence of a power to divide the Church. 

Then, the only other occasions on which it may be supposed that any light can be 
thrown by the action of the General Conference on the question which is now the 
subject of inquiry, are the proceedings of 1844 and 1848. [I did not understand the 
eminent counsel for the plaintiffs to place great reliance on the proceedings of 1844, 
as evidence of the law. Ido not intend to say anything disrespectful to that body, 
but it is my duty to remind the Court, that under the circumstances in which it met and 
did its work, its proceedings, as evidence of the law, will be considered, I think, by 
no fair inquirer as entitled to any considerable degree of weight, when compared 
with the more deliberate, and prolonged, and instructive discussions and investiga- 
tions of the Conference of 1828, on the Canada case. In the first place, this Confer- 
ence of 1844 was a body assembled in the ordinary way, so that, so far as we can 


282 


learn, no constituent to any member elected had the slightest intimation that such a 
transcendent question as this was coming into consideration at all. Then, the trans- 
actions of that body unfitted them for the deep and calm inquiry. The greater part 
of the time they were together was occupied in debate touching the proceedings in 
Bishop Andrew’s case, and when they arrived at the close of that discussion, some- 
what exhausted, a little dispirited and peevish, needing the air of the mountain tops 
and the firesides of their own families to restore them to their habitual temper, not 
to say free action of the Methodist brain, they left themselves no time to deliberate 
on this matter, for the vote was taken on Bishop Andrew’s case on Saturday, and on 
the next Saturday they cut the Church in two, as a man would serve a cucumber, 
and the intervening time was occupied in writing the Protest and the Reply to it. 
There is not a particle of evidence that a single member of that Conference ever in 
his life, before he came or after he came, reflected for half an hour on the constitu- 
tional question which is to be decided by this Bench. If I am wrong my learned 
friend will correct the statement; but I repeat, there is not a particle of evidence 
that in their preparatory studies, in the annual conferences, they thought of it ; there 
is not a particle of evidence that there were three lines in a newspaper preparing the 
Church and the country for this thunderbolt out of an unclouded sky. They came 
in the ordinary course of business to do ordinary business, and were not called for 
any extraordinary purpose. Being there, under the circumstances to which I have 
referred, the work is done. Hence, I respectfully submit that it is not high and 
satisfactory evidence of the law on such a question as this. 

T ought to take in this review, and in answer to that in some measure, the pro- 
ceedings of the General Conference of 1848, which declare a rule of law directly the 
other way, to the end that the Court may have in a single view all the considerations 
which may be deemed important on the point. My learned brother does not go fur- 
ther than I do when he says, that he who bereaves me of our South bereaves me of 
most precious and valued jewels; but he goes a little too far, when he says that the 
Conference of 1848 met bereaved and shorn of all its strength. Not quite so. On 
the contrary, the annual conferences in 1848 were most ably represented—public 
opinion had developed itself; men had cooled. That Conference stood on higher 
ground. I agree that it then had a somewhat sectional character, but I shall pray 
your Honours by-and-by to iook with some attention on reports in that body on 
which we rely, to see whether ability enough did not remain, circumstances in other 
respects being the same, to investigate and elucidate such a question as this. I 
would state here that the decision inthe case cited from Benjamin Monroe, which 
was read from a pamphlet the other day, was made before 1848, and there was no- 
thing before that decision to show that there was the conflicting judgment of another 
General Conference on the subject. The mention of that case reminds me of a sin- 
gular suggestion on the subject of power, which I remember is advanced in the opinion 
of the Court in that case. J do not know that the learned counsel for the plaintiffs 
adopted that argument, which certainly would have given a great deal of respectabi- 
lity to it, but it is an argument advanced by the Court in that case, and will there- 
fore come under the observation of your Honours. It is said that if, without any faci- 
lities being afforded by the General Conference, the South had gone forward and 
done this very act, the General Conference would be the body, according to ecclesi- 
astical polity, to go on and arrange and adjust between the separated and mutilated 
fragments; it would be the constitutional body to draw the new line of boundary 
and to adjust the terms of future union with the new Church, which convulsion and 
violence had thus unexpectedly erected by its side; and that, therefore, by analogy, 
the General Conference should have a power to do in advance that same thing. I 


283 


beg to say, that that is the old logical sophism of ignotum per ignotius, because there 
is no manner of certainty that, in such a crisis as that, there would be devolved on 
the General Conference the absolute power of arranging for a crisis so extraordinary. 
Nobody knows whether it would be or not. What is the value of the argument in 
the supposed case? Nobody knows whether it would be devolved on the General 
Conference by a great moral, civil, or ecclesiastical convulsion, tearing away half the 
Church. Nobody can show me anything in the history or polity of the Church to 
prove that the General Conference would be the only body charged with the adjust- 
ment of such a crisis as that. On the contrary, I say it is ten thousand times more 
probable that thereupon the united remaining sovereign will would be assembled 
en masse; for the great question would be, What should then be done with this muti- 
lated fragment? Shall it be deemed that the Methodist Episcopal Church still 
exists? Or shall it be deemed disintegrated? And hence, until you see that the 
General Conference would, in such a case, certainly do this, to argue in this way is, 
in the first place, ignotwm per ignolius. ; 

There is, however, a deeper difficulty. It does not follow that because the Gene- 
ral Conference may act constitutionally on a crisis produced by the action of another, 
it may therefore proceed and initiate and facilitate that business in advance. I ap- 
prehend that before the least weight can be given to such an argument as this, your 
Honours must see that the power, which it is said they possess in that case, is so 
exactly like the power they would exert in the supposed case, that you can see no 
reason why the original constituent body could not have given one as well as the 
other. Therefore, if you were judicially to discern that the constituent body might 
perfectly well have clothed them with the constitutional competency to deal with 
such a case as that,and yet have withheld it from them, then this power does not 
follow from that power, and there is the fallacy of the argument. Let me take a 
case—Quod omen avertat Jupiter! If a convulsion in one State spread into another 
and carry off a range of States, that same general government, when that crisis shall 
have arrived, would be the constitutional body to recognise the foreign existence and 
to arrange the terms of frontier connexion, to define the line of boundary, and to act 
on the crisis. Could we infer from that that they could divide the States? So here 
exactly. I put this argument with very great confidence of its general soundness. 
Cannot this Court say judicially, perfectly well, that the constituent body of 1808 
might have said exactly this to the General Conference: ‘‘ Consider yourselves 
charged with the great mission of preserving the unity of the Church; let that unity 
be first and last in all your thoughts, and counsels, and prayers; if an excited locality 
hereafter shall come to you and solicit to be let off, discourage them, hang over their 
heads every terror of the Church, hang over their heads all the undefined terrors of 
excommunication, and thus, if you can, restrain the dire desire, and bring them back 
again ; but if, unmindful of this your action, they go out, remember you have unity 
to preserve ; what you have, keep and adorm; for unity, take care of what is left, and 
for unity do not throw out facilities in advance for its dissolution.” To tell me, then, 
that because this body would find itself charged with the great duty of saving all they 
could, and arranging a frontier of peace with this separated secession, in the case I 
have been putting, they may therefore divide, is to say that extreme medicine may be 
made into daily bread, and a shield into a sword of death. 

I therefore respectfully submit that that analogy does not, in the slightest degree, 
apply to the case before the Court, and that unless your Honours do clearly discern 
that, in arguing from one thing to another in this case, and especially to ignotius 
from ignotwm, and the reverse, the powers are so identical that one being given the 
other follows necessarily, neither of the powers is given. 


284 


I have said all that I intended to say on the subject of power. I am ready to leave 
it with a single suggestion. Your Honours are aware that we take another ground, 
and that is, that if this power existed, it was exerted only on a contingency by the 
General Conference, i. e., upon a representation made to them by the minority from 
the South that a necessity would certainly develop itself for such a change, and 
thereupon, in anticipation of such necessity to be afterwards developed, the General 
Conference proceeded to do what they have done in the way of a division, and that 
that contingency never has happened in matter of fact. That is the substance of the 
point. ‘The minority feared a local excitement. Their brethren of the North said to 
them, “If you find you must desert them or us, we will let you go.” We say they 
did not find it, but made it so. We say that whether it existed or not, the General 
Conference next to sit was to decide, or this Court was to decide. If it was the 
General Conference next to sit which was to decide, they have decided against them. 
If it was this Court, we respectfully submit that your Honours will decide against 
them. I propose to submit all that part of the case to the official report on the state 
of the Church, to be found on page 138 of Proofs No. 1. It is an argument of great 
ability, embodying all I could wish, and more than I should be able myself, on the 
same point, to say to the Court. I have done, then, with the question of power and 
the exertion of the power. 

It remains for me very briefly to open, not to attempt to enforce, in the first place, 
that the legal consequences of this proposition, if maintained, are fatal to the plain- 
tiffs’ claim ; and, in the next place, that even if this proposition of the want of power or 
the exertion of it is not maintained, still the plaintiffs cannot sustain their bill. In 
the first place, and in a general way, if the plaintiffs have voluntarily seceded and 
separated themselves from membership, without competent ecclesiastical authority 
terminating their membership, I am not able to understand how it can be seriously 
contested that their rights of property have also terminated. To avoid that conse- 
quence, the plaintiffs must show that the beneficiaries of this fund have such a right 
that a voluntary unauthorized abandonment of membership does not lose it. This 
conducts us to the very important question of the nature and limitations of the right 
of the beneficiaries in this fund. Ido not know that we have very much to observe 
on in the statement made by the eminent counsel for the plaintiffs in regard to the 
origin and nature of this fund, the Book Concern, except, perhaps, if he will give me 
leave to say it, a certain degree of indistinctness in the exhibition of the capital quali- 
fication, on which all the rights of the beneficiaries in it are limited—that of continued 
membership. In his interesting outline of its history in a general way, we concur. 
We may pause to refresh ourselves for a moment. That history goes back to the 
year 1787. It was very early discerned, as my learned brother has said, that a sacred 
written literature would be among the most important instrumentalities by which the 
great ends of this Church could be accomplished. Some books of devotion and 
worship, at any rate, there must be provided for the humblest and least literate of its 
numerous and growing congregations. ‘Therefore, as early as 1787 individual 
preachers appear to have conceived the idea of publishing and circulating such books 
and creating such a literature as this. ‘To this end, as we gather from history, they 
began, as we are very apt to begin in America, on borrowed capital. A contribution 
may have been occasionally made, but the main source of growth undoubtedly was 
from the profits of the business. It has grown, under the administration of the 
Church, from 1787, when it was started with $4,000 capital and $3,000 debt, to the 
very large amount of $750,000—from $1,000 to $750,000. These relative sums are 
not important to the determination of the legal point, though a very large perennial con- 
tribution of spiritual, and, I am glad to be able to add, intellectual as well as moral food. 


285 


It was very early discerned that this business could be made, not only to support 
and enlarge itself, but also to yield a surplus of profits; and it is very interesting to 
observe, that from its origin it was determined to dedicate that sort of profits to, 
what we call at the bar, a charitable use,—that is to say, technically and legally, a 
charitable use, but not at all excluding meritorious service, and giving a great deal 
more prominence to meritorious service in the beneficiary’s title than our friends on 
the other side contend. From its very origin this fund was devoted to a charitable 
use. The designation of the beneficiaries and the mode of administering it have 
varied a little; but from 1796 to this day, by a law passed in 1796, standing on the 
record of its Discipline, re-enacted in 1800, re-enacted in 1804, re-enacted in 1808, 
and continued, that surplus fund has stood explicitly, and irrevocably, and unequivo- 
cally devoted to a perfect and well-defined description of beneficiaries—to travellmg, * 
supernumerary, superannuated, and exhausted preachers and their families, being, as 
we say, all the time in membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church. That ap- 
propriation of these funds was made by law in 1796; to that appropriation of them 
this Church has adhered, without the interruption of a moment. Under that dedica- 
tion it has grown up from $1,000 to $750,000; under that dedication, many laborious 
men, of the living and the dead, came into the Church, lived there, laboured there, 
died there, and live there and labour there yet, on the faith of a sound interpretation 
and an exact form of administration of that trust. And I am here to-day for nothing but 
the true interpretation of that trust. Find me the beneficiary according to the law, 
and that beneficiary shall have his share of the funds in the hands of my clients. 
The Court knows how the matter stands. The trustees are my clients, the book 
agents on record; the beneficiaries are the persons indicated ; those who manage 
the fund are the annual conferences and the General Conference ; and the mode of 
doing it is this :—these book agents designate the amount to which each annual con- 
ference is entitled, and each thereupon draws its amount, calls the beneficiaries, and 
proceeds to measure to each party according to his claim. 

So much for the history. Passing from this to the legal questions, I will not 
stop to say anything on the first two points which are contained on the plaintiffs’ brief, 
although perhaps they would warrant the criticism that they are somewhat inade- 
quately conceived, a little overstated ; but I pass them without particular remark. 
It is on arriving at the third point that we find the beginning of the controversy. 
We think, with very great submission, that the learned and eminent counsel, in this 
point and in his argument, overstates the right of any beneficiary when he calls it a 
perfect right, and that they misdescribe it when they call it a right in a fund of earn- 
ings in the nature of a partnership derived from work and labour about books. We 
must submit on this that they fail, as it seems to us, to appreciate that the capital 
qualification under which every beneficiary is to acquire and hold it, is the quali- 
fication of original and continued membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
That qualification we think they fail, in all its importance, to appreciate. I will 
not pause at this moment to indicate with what propriety it is said that the right 
of any beneficiary is a perfect right. In regard to the qualities that are properly at- 
tributable to it in a legal point of view, it is a right which began to be acquired by 
coming within the designatio personarum, but it is a right to be maintained and per- 
fected only by the continued performance of certain conditions. He who becomes a 
travelling preacher initiates a right ; but if he is expelled, as he sometimes is, or if 
he is located, as he may be, he loses that right. So also of asupernumerary and even 
of a superannuated. So then I submit that it is a right, beginning by one coming 
within a certain designatio personarum, but which is lost for want of a continuance in 
official well-doing afterwards. 


286 


Nor will I pause at this moment to inquire, because I attach no sort of con- 
sequence to it, although there is some diversity of judgment as to that point, if 
this right of the beneficiary is in the least degree better or worse from the circum- 
stance on which my learned friend places some stress, that the fund has grown from 
profits on books which the travelling preachers of the society sold. I suppose it alto- 
gether immaterial. The right of the beneficiary on this dedication to charitable uses 
does not depend in the least on the kind of work which, as a travelling preacher, he 
does, or, as a supernumerary or superannuated, he has done; but the right depends 
on this—that he became a preacher and continued to be a preacher under the Disci- 
pline, under the dedication which gives a preacher a certain allowance and a certain 
claim on this fund. That I submit in point of law is exactly the origin of the preach- 
*er’s right. There is no natural right under any circumstances, no right raised by 
implication for work and labour done. The only requisite is—becoming a travelling 
preacher, continuing a travelling preacher, continuing a supernumerary or superan- 
nuated preacher, under the same dedication, in whatever field of Methodist labour he 
may have been employed. Whether this preacher was, what they call in some soci- 
eties, a colporteur of books, is of no importance. He who never carried a book for 
sale in his life is as clearly within the grant as he who has carried libraries of books. 
Some preachers carried books and some did not carry them. Ifhe carried them, it adds 
nothing to his title; if he did not, it detracts nothing from his title. My learned bro- 
ther will give me leave to say that the most conservative and best instructed on the 
other side really can find nothing better to put their case on than absolute socialism 
at last. “He has laboured about the books, and therefore has a natural right to the 
fund,’ they say. Is not that socialism? To be sure he has laboured about the 
books, but the books were not his. Did he write them? No. Did he own them? 
Certainly not. Did he own their profits? Certainly not. On the contrary, they 
were the property of another party, to wit, the trustee, for charitable uses, and that 
party hired him to work for him, and told him, “If you work and be a travelling 
preacher, supernumerary or superannuated, you will have an interest in this fund.” 
But in the meantime books and profits belonged to his employer, and his right at 
last cannot be placed or maintained for a minute on any ground but that he is a ser- 
vant and labourer, and therefore, according to the highest authority, ‘‘ worthy of his 
hire,” according to the terms of that hire. I shall therefore take it for granted, with- 
out stopping to develop it, that while the right is no doubt perfect, in a certain 
sense, if he continues in well-doing officially to the end, it is not accurately de- 
scribed, it is not described according to law, it is not described according to the 
jurisprudence of conservation, by the plaintiffs. There is not a labourer in the ser- 
vice of New-York that might not allege an interest in the fund on the same grounds 
exactly. Does he not carry out the milk? Does he not take care of the chyme? 
Is it not immediately and directly attributable to his skill that the fund was gathered ? 
Why has he not a right to it? Because he did not work in a state of nature, but 
under a convention quae vincit legem, under a contract with the owner that he should’ 
do his work and receive certain wages. I have not therefore attached a great deal 
of importance to this view, although much has been said about it. 

We come directly at last to the great decisive qualification which is overlooked on 
the other side, whether membership is not an indispensable qualification to initiating 
a right, and continuing membership indispensable to the continuance of the right. 
I submit that is perfectly plain—too plain for me to argue for a moment. I do not 
believe either of the eminent counsel mean to say that there can be any pretence that 
this description of persons, at the time when their right inchoates and attaches to 
them at first, are not to be members of the Methodist Episcopal Church. - My learned 


287 


brother surely does not mean to say that a travelling preacher in Bermuda has a right 
to this fund. Nobody contends for that. Beyond all doubt, when they first come 
within the designatio personarwm on which the right takes its inchoation, they are to 
be members. The question is, whether they can go away and still be members. I 
submit that they cannot, for this general reason, that the right is not perfect at the 
start, but it is a right to be kept alive and matured by a series of service—because 
the Church may exact duties from him, in the administration of which he may lose 
the right. The travelling preacher, if he is expelled, loses the right ; if he is tamed 
into a local preacher, he loses his right. Now, can it be pretended that while a travel- 
ling preacher remains and works in the Methodist Church, and holds his interest on 
condition that he does not get expelled and does not get located, another preacher, 
who came into the Church on the same day, can retire from its service, and thus 
relieve himself from the conditions and inconveniences and qualifications under which 
the other holds his right, and retain his right? Can he retire, and thus avoid the 
onus, and retain the conmodum? JI respectfully submit that he cannot. The mean- 
ing, therefore, of the system is, if he becomes a travelling preacher, if he remains a 
travelling preacher, he earns a right ; but if he lives so that the Church cannot fol- 
low him by the conditions, so that it cannot follow him by the qualifications, cannot 
hold him to any responsibility, his right is gone; or else it is to be conceded that 
by departing from the Church he may, by his own act, change the tenure of title granted 
to all alike by the original law. That is just as true of the supernumerary as it is of 
the travelling preacher. A supernumerary (if my ecclesiastical friends will permit 
me to say it) is nothing but an officer on shore waiting orders. He is subject to the 
call of the Church, and is lable to be put in active service, liable to be expelled, 
liable to be located, as well as another. This seems to be just as true of the super- 
annuated. One would think that if anybody could retire from the Church and retain 
title, it would be the superannuated, the exhausted preacher. Yet there can be no 
doubt that he also is required by the discipline of the Church to stay and serve. It 
is true that his day of active, manly exercise is done, but it is also true that there re- 
mains a service of loyalty and love. His silvery cord may be about to be loosened 
and the bowl to be broken at the fountain, yet he may testify of the Church by the 
beauty of a declining and ripe age ; his lips may continue to speak for her, his hands 
may continue to be lifted up. Therefore it is that the Church that maintains him, 
follows him with a duty gentler and gentler, and more and more kindly executed, but 
a duty to his grave. There is never an hour when the longest official life entitles 
the most meritorious superannuated preacher to throw off the weight of age, to retire 
from duty, and yet enjoy support. This is what makes this Church what it is—small 
pay, hard work, constant superintendence, justice to all men according to the con- 
tract. I do not know that it is necessary to add anything to this general argument. 

My learned brother cannot conceive how a Methodist going occasionally to a Pres- 
byterian meeting should lose his share of the fund. I think that perhaps it might do 
him good occasionally to go toa Presbyterian meeting. He may go anywhere until 
he gets expelled, and do anything that does not terminate membership. That is all. 
This Church is not strict, this Church is not narrow ; and strict, or narrow, or other- 
wise, while the membership remains undissolved by expulsion, the right remains. 
My learned friend did not seem to consider that remaining a Methodist was neces- 
sary to continue the right. Why, says he, he was to be a preacher, and nothing is 
said about his being a Methodist. He deduced it, however, that the object was to 
promote Methodism, and he was a little shocked that a person should lose his right 
because he was promoting another religion. Does my friend mean to say that in the 
first instance a man can take a right to the fund because he preaches Methodism? I 


288 


suppose he preaches it in Bermuda under the pine trees, or in Canada among the 
regions of perpetual snow—does he take title? It is perfectly clear that he does 
not. I submit that it is not accurate to say this fund was created to promote Metho- 
dism. It was created by the Methodist Episcopal Church to promote its own effi- 
ciency and strength for good, and thus enable it to spread Methodism. That is the 
object of the Methodist Episcopal Church and of this fund. Then it is not to pro- 
mote Methodism generally, but to strengthen the Church, to enrich it, to make elo- 
quent tongues, and touch lips as with fire, to the end that by the Church Methodism 
shall be spread. 

Why should I argue the matter at large when we have two such memorable con- 
structions before us as the Canada case and the case of 18442 What was the Canada 
case, as a property case? I have touched on it at considerable length as it bears on 
the ecclesiastical question. I submit that it was settled on that occasion with great 
deliberation, against every wish of every man’s heart, that this fund was to be used 
within these uses for travelling, supernumerary, and superannuated preachers ; and 
that in departing, not merely in peace, but with every benediction of the Church, the 
Canada Church could take nothing. That is the Canada case. Canada left this 
Church in peace. Did not the members of the Canadian Church remain Methodists 
still? Did they not continue to give, in Methodistical spirit, the advice of foreign 
philanthropy about slavery, to show how affectionately they remembered us? They 
went in peace, they remained Methodists, and yet you find this Church, by a unani- 
mous and deliberate judgment, declaring that they were not entitled to a farthing. 
That is the very question now before the Court. I am now departing from the case 
of unauthorized secession, and speaking of the case of secession authorized, and at- 
tended by the greetings of those who gave the leave. In that case it is settled. 
Your Honours, by referring to the case, will find that there was a strong desire to 
indulge the Canadians ; it was a struggle between conviction and inclination. Your 
Honours, as men as well as learned judges, will appreciate the value of such a deci- 
sion as that. It was a decision wrung from the Conference by a perfectly understood 
sense of duty. We are on that very identical question, Who is within these uses ? 
It is to be devoted to travelling preachers, supernumerary and superannuated. Where 
and who? Members of what? Members of this Church; and that decision is that 
if they cease to be such, although by consent of everybody, and affectionate dismissal 
of everybody, the right was gone. 

Have we not a still stronger case in this very proceeding of 18447 Have we not 
here all but the unanimous judgment of this body, that persons no longer members, 
even if they depart in peace and by consent, cannot take a dollar? Does not the 
action of that body record the unanimous judgment of the body, that these uses fail 
on failure of membership, and that this retirement, although peaceable, is a failure 
of membership, and that therefore, unless the uses could be enlarged, the retiring 
member was no longer within them? Was not that the very reason why they 
recommended to the annual conferences a change in the restrictive article? I sup- 
pose then we have here the highest evidence of law ; we have the contemporaneous 
exposition of its makers, under extraordinary circumstances, and they certainly re- 
lieve me from the trouble of pursuing the argument further. I had intended to 
trace the connexion between such an association as this and a partnership ; but 
ITremember by whom I am to be followed, on the part of these defendants, and I 
gladly relieve the Court from the further consideration of this part of the case. 

Then, if this be so, the case is ended in every view. Authorized or unauthorized, 
membership has gone, and with membership right is gone. The only answer to 
this, which we have been able to appreciate, is, that the old Church is destroyed, and 


289 


two new ones created upon its site, and upon that destruction everybody was remit- 
ted to his natural rights—the ship had gone ashore, and every man was to get a nail 
or a plank as he could—everybody upon that dissolution is remitted to his natural 
right, as in a joint-stock company or ina partnership. ‘That is the only case, as I 
understand, which is left for the plaintiffs. To this there are four answers, each of 
which is, I think, equally decisive. In the first place, I have already argued that the 
General Conference has no power ecclesiastically to destroy the Church. I am not 
now speaking of a division leaving the old identity untouched. I have argued that they 
cannot destroy the Church, and raise two or two thousand Churches from its ashes. 
In the next place, the General Conference in this great transaction did not assume 
to destroy the Church, but on the contrary, the Plan of Separation, from beginning to 
end, shows that what they intended to do was to authorize a departure, leaving the old 
identity untouched. If your Honours will do me the favour to look into the Plan as 
it is stated in the bill you will find:—lIst. That the General Conference never 
assumed, in terms, to destroy the Church. 2d. That they never assumed, in terms, 
to divide the Church. On the other hand, it is quite striking to remark, that while 
it speaks of a division of property, it never speaks of a division of the Church, but 
simply and merely of a separation of parties from the Church; it deals throughout 
with a contemplated act of other persons, and calls that act a separation by them, 
and all it authorizes is a separation by others leaving itself to exist. It calls itself 
by the old name of Methodist Episcopal Church, and designates the new one, thus 
to be erected, by the name of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South ; and I submit 
that to retain the name is to retain the identity. I would call the attention of the 
Court to a single section in the bill on page 4. It embodies the entire theory of 
the Plan of Separation. Article 2 of the Plan of Separation says :— 


“That ministers, local and travelling, of every grade and office in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, may, as they prefer, remain in that Church, or, without blame, 
attach themselves to the Church, South.” 


Your Honours will find the proof of my argument on pp. 4, 5, and 6 of the bill. In 
that connexion, I may be permitted to say, that such is the view of this transaction taken 
in 7 Ben. Monroe, p. 507, in the case which has been cited. (For extract, sce p. 368.) 

Let me add two auxiliary suggestions. The first is, That the Louisville Conven- 
tion throughout all their resolutions say nothing at all of a division of the Church, 
but characterize their own act as a separation from an identity already existing, and 
which it leaves exactly as it was before, only abridged. 2d. The frame of the 
plaintiffs’ bill so treats the affair. They do not call us, or anybody representing us, 
a new Church, nor these defendants the agents of a new Church ; but it is assumed 
throughout that the old Methodist Episcopal Church exists ab eo nomine. If your 
Honours will turn to pp. 10 and 11 of the bill, you will find this remark abundantly 
verified. 

In the third place, not only does the General Conference not assume to destroy, 
and thus to allow the plaintiffs to interpose their theory of the natural right of all the 
stockholders, but it goes further. It does not content itself with authorizing a sepa- 
ration and stopping there, but it goes further, and takes care to ordain solicitously 
that the party seceding shall have nothing at allon the ground of natural right, 
nothing at all on the ground of natural equity, attaching to dissolution and growing 
out of an old quantum meruit for work and labour about books, but that he shall have 
nothing except according to the existing law of the society—except the annual con- 
ferences would give it. I think we find here evidence of the proposition. ‘Thensin 
the bill to which I have been making reference, we find evidence of it also. The 


19 


290 


work was consummated by the Conference, and I submit that no man is to take any- 
thing on the ground of natural right—no man is to take anything except under the 
lex societatis, i. e., if the annual conferences will give it, and they recommend 
them to do so. Instead of a dissolution, there was a withdrawal of parties; and 
it was ordained that everybody not withdrawing, should be subject to the still ex- 
isting law of the society. ‘Therefore, I submit that it is impossible, against this 
reiterated question of intent, that the plaintiffs can imply a constructive equity on 
which they can come in and insist upon remission to natural right. 

Is it not perfectly plain, as a matter of meaning, that the General Conference in- 
tends that nobody shall take a dollar by secession or natural right, unless the annual 
conferences give it? Is it not absurd to suppose they would go on providing, that if 
the annual conference do so and so, something shall follow, if they meant to ordain, 
whether the annual conferences do so or not, that every man should have part of the 
fund? Is it not perfectly obvious that they meant to recognise the law of the 
society as in force, to interpret it as giving the property only to members, and there- 
upon to confine their action to the advisory alteration of the use without which no 
right was to arise at all? Is it not then perfectly plain, that against this ordinance 
of the General Conference on this express agreement no possible implication can be 
raised? How can the plaintiffs take a part of this bill and reject the rest? Can 
they take so much of it as suits them, and go for natural equity for the rest of it ? 
Would the Conference of 1844 have divided the Church, if the effect would be to 
let in natural right, on which the seceder should take as much as he that remained, 
when they were sitting under a constitution expressly prohibiting them from com- 
mitting any such act ? 

Finally and fourthly, there is another answer to the suggestion that the division lets 
the plaintiffs in on natural equity against the meaning of the Conference ; and it is, 
that if such must be the effect, whether the General Conference can by express 
declaration help it or not, we know they had no power to make a dissolution. Your 
Honours will observe that it adds another element to the argument I had the honour 
to submit yesterday, whether ecclesiastically they can divide or not. If it be so 
that a division, in spite of the General Conference and everything they can ordain 
to qualify it, must necessarily carry the property out of its use, by carrying it to one 
not a member, we know they cannot make it, because they are a representative body, 
with no power but what the constituent gives ; and we know by the terms of the 
constitution under which they exist, that they are forbidden to do that act directly, 
and they cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly. Therefore, I say that 
if the General Conference is so situated, that it cannot divide this Church without 
the additional consequence that the property goes to one not entitled, it follows that 
they cannot divide the Church, and that is no great harm in my humble judgment. 
They cannot divide, if to divide is to break the constitution. They cannot grasp 
doubtful ecclesiastical power with the effect of violating plain civil right. 

T need not, then, in conclusion, suggest the other point which, however, I believe, 
stands on proof that the annual conferences and General Conference together could 
not set this use at large. The general grant may be thus stated. The right is in 
cestique and his continuing a member. ‘Therefore, if the annual conferences had 
acted on this recommendation, they could not have given the fund to the retiring 
members. Such was the original grant. The use was created in 1792 or 1800, and 
renewed in 1804, and it became the law of the Church, and thenceforward I suppose 
remained the law of the Church. The authorities for the proposition are on the brief. 
Tt is, however, a moot-point, and of no sort of consequence, as the annual confer- 
ences did not unite in agreeing to the recommendation. 


19* 


291 


I have been too much indulged by the kindness of the Court to trespass for 
another moment on your Honours’ attention. I have certainly supposed that the 
plaintiffs have no legal and no equitable right to the relief for which they ask, in any 
of the forms in which they ask for it. I cannot admit that they have been misled 
into their present position by any act of the defendants. The General Conference 
did for them all it could; it recommended to the annual conferences to rescind. 
They did not rescind. The plaintiffs will give me leave to say that they knew per- 
fectly well from the beginning, and at every step they took, that they took it under 
the hazards of the action of the annual conferences, and that they ran the risk of an 
unfavourable judgment, even if they themselves did not procure that unfavourable 
judgment. One consolation and one certainty we have. We know that the law of 
the case will be discerned and applied. We know perfectly well that whatever may 
be the result of the case, or the result of the general controversy, it will vindicate and 
exemplify, what needs neither to be vindicated nor exemplified—the administration of 
justice according to a settled rule. With the consequences of their judgments, this 
Court is not in the habit of troubling itself in advance to inquire. But I may be 
permitted to say for myself at the bar, looking a little beyond the immediate profes- 
sional inquiry here involved, that I do not know that there is anything this day which 
a wise man and a lover of his country should as much desire as the re-establishment, 
in some good measure, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, one Church again for the 
North and the South. Whether and to what extent one may surely entertain such a 
hope as that, I am sure I have not a satisfactory means of determining. For myself, 
let me tell the Court, however, before I take my leave of them, that my clients this 
day are a Methodist Episcopal Church for North and South, shorn of some beams, 
bereaved of some auxiliary talent, and impaired to some extent of their strength and 
means of utility. These defendants are this day still a Church for the North and the 
South. This Methodist Episcopal Church, the old organization, exists this day in 
many a slave State. In Delaware, in Maryland, in Eastern Virginia, in Western Vir- 
ginia, in Kentucky, in Missouri, in Arkansas, in Texas, it has thousands of attached 
affectionate adherents. I rejoice to be able to believe that it is enlarging. I will not 
deny that, and in addition to the reasons of gratification with which I believe the law 
of the case is with the defendants, I feel also that a decision in their favour will do 
something to enable this Church to enlarge itself in that direction, will add something 
to its means of winning back, by its ample provisions and its ever open arms, the 
whole ancient household of its faith. 


Mr. Woop,—May it please your Honours, so much time has already been occu- 
pied in the inyestigation of this case, and the evidence has been so fully and so ably 
sifted and detailed by the opening counsel on both sides, that I think it would be a 
waste of time for the closing counsel to occupy much of your attention in going over 
the evidence. I shall therefore condense the remarks which I propose to make on 
that branch of the case in as narrow a space as possible, and confine myself principally 
to the argument of the law of the case, considering the facts in a great measure as 
already fully developed before the Court. 

It is important that we should understand, at the very threshold of this argu- 
ment, the precise issue between these parties. The plaintiffs in this case, claim a 
portion of this fund, corresponding in amount with the relative proportion of the 
members who have gone off from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and formed the 
new Church, South. They have brought this suit for the purpose of recovering this 
property. There has been an actual separation of the ecclesiastical body. That is 
not disputed ; and the question now is, whether that separation entitles them to 


292 


recover and receive a ratable proportion of the property, the income of which be- 
longs to certain beneficiaries for the time being, who are attached to the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. That is the important issue between the parties in this cause. 
It certainly is a most unfortunate controversy—for if there are any subjects which 
ought to be kept out of dispute, which ought to be marked emphatically with the 
spirit of peace, they are religious subjects. Every controversy of the kind has a 
most deleterious effect upon the morals of the community. The rising generation 
lose, in a great measure, their respect for religion, when they see the heads of the 
Church quarrelling and dividing. We have seen the baneful influence of these con- 
troversies in divisions of-other Churches which have heretofore taken place ; and I 
will venture to say that the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Church, South, will 
soon discover it, by sad experience. But there is another point of view in which it 
is unfortunate. This Methodist Episcopal Church, in its territorial jurisdiction, is 
commensurate with the entire Union. It is one of the largest Churches in this coun- 
try. It has been the pioneer of religion. It has gone on with the advance of civili- 
zation and improvement in this country. It has carried religion along with settle- 
ment and civilization, and has ameliorated the condition of the different classes of the 
community upon our gradually extending borders. A division of this kind, therefore, 
may be said, in some measure, to be a national concern; and when we find in the 
present condition of our country, that there has been, as is admitted on all hands, and 
as many believe still to exist, serious danger threatening the unity of this federal 
government, it is of importance that a controversy of this kind should, if possible, 
be adjusted, and it is to be seriously regretted that such a controversy has arisen. It 
is seriously to be regretted that the Southern members of this Church have thought pro- 
per to bring their claim into a court of justice, more especially while it was in a course 
of amicable adjustment, and when, with a little more patience and forbearance, 
there was every probability that it would be finally adjusted. But, unfortunately, 
they have commenced this controversy, and it is our duty now to defend ourselves. 


The counsel on the other side have mainly rested their claim upon grounds which | 


appear to me to be entirely fallacious. ‘They seem to look upon themselves, or rather 
upon the beneficiaries whom they say they represent, in what is called the Southern 
branch of this Church, as having a sort of vested right to this property. They draw 
a distinction between property which has been given to a Church, and property which 
has been acquired by the labour of individuals belonging to a Church. They treat 
this as property of the latter kind, and they claim they have a right to it, a vested 
right ; and upon the division of this Church they are entitled, as in the case of a part- 
nership or tenancy in common, to have a division of the property and receive a ratable 
proportion. It appears to me that this is an entirely erroneous view of this subject. 
T am aware they are somewhat warranted in this course of remark by the decision 
which was made in the Maysville case, whch they refer to, and on which they mainly 
rely. But I trust I shall be able to satisfy this Court that the principles upon which 
that decision rests, and the principles upon which they now base their claim, are 
entirely fallacious and unfounded. 

I consider, and they admit, I believe, in their claim, that their rights in this case 
depend upon the law of charitable uses. It is important, therefore, that we should 
understand precisely the nature of that kind of property, and of the claim which they 
make. A charitable use is a public use. It is called charitable mainly because the 
largest portion of that kind of public property in every Christian country is based 
upon a charitable foundation. There are four elements in every class of charitable 
use. There are, in the first place, the founders of, and contributors to, the charity, 
those who have created and bestowed the property or the funds to the charitable pur- 


ee 


293 


poses. There are, in the second place, the trustees of the charity, those who hold 
the legal estate in trust. In the third place, there are the managers of the charity, 
those who take charge of it, who conduct it, and who distribute it. Managers are 
essentially necessary, because there are no certain persons taking a temporal interest 
in the property. And, lastly, there are the beneficiaries among whom the property 
is distributed, according to the purpose of the charity, the use which was originally 
impressed upon it. ‘The management of the charity is according to the scheme or 
plan which was originally impressed upon it by the founders, or where it is of a gene- 
ral nature, and a charity at large as it is called, a court of equity which protects all 
kinds of uses, takes charge of it and establishes a scheme. Such a scheme will be 
found in the case of Mogridge vs. Thackwell, in '7 Vesey’s Reports. 

These beneficiaries in this case have no vested estate, no fixed right, and hence 
they have no power of alienation. They cannot dispose of this property. Suppose, 
before any division of this Church took place, all the superannuated and supernume- 
rary ministers of the Church for the time being, all who come within the description 
of the beneficiaries of this charity, had undertaken to alienate, what would the alien- 
ation have been good for? The attempt would have been perfectly visionary. They 
would have had no right to doit. They have no right, except as they answer the 
description of the beneficiaries, to receive from time to time the income or profits of 
the fund, as it is dealt out by the managers in the administration of the charity. 
Their right, therefore, is enforced and managed by the managers of the charity ac- 
cording to the scheme, and their right too in a court of equity, wherever it comes 
into dispute or difficulty, as between them and the trustees, managers or founders, is 
protected by the attorney-general. Your Honours will find in the case of Duke vs. 
Fuller, 9 New-Hampshire Reports, 536, a case which will fully illustrate this sub- 
ject. That was the case of a charitable use, in which the beneficiaries of the charity 
undertook to dissolve the institution altogether, and to divide the funds among them- 
selves individually. A bill was filed by the attorney-general in order to deprive them 
of the property which they had thus taken and appropriated among themselves, to es- 
tablish the charity, and to have a plan devised and adopted for the administration of 
it. The claim in that case was enforced by the Court. Well, if im the case cited, 
as the counsel on the other side seem to think is the case here, the property really 
belonged to these beneficiaries ; if they had acquired it, and they were to be con- 
sidered as tenants in common of the fund, they would have had a right to divide it, 
to dispose of it as they pleased, each individual to alienate his share. But if it is 
under a charitable use, and if they are entitled to nothing more than a portion of the 
funds as administered under the charity, then they take them whenever they are 
doled out in that way; and they have no other right, except what is derived in that 
manner under the management of the charity. 

This law of charitable use is enforced in this State and in this country. It has 
been involved, I admit, in a good deal of doubt and difficulty heretofore But I be- 
lieve it has come now to be thoroughly understood. You will find it adopted in this 
State in the case of the Garden-street church, 7 Paige, 78 ; and you will find that 
the chancellor, too, in that case, takes back some positions which he had advanced 
in another case at an earlier period. You will find it further devolved in the case 
of Shotwell vs. Mott, 2 Sandford’s Chancery Reports, page 46, and in Vulcan vs. 
Yates, 3 Barbour’s Chancery Reports, 242. I will not detain the Court with read- 
ing these authorities—you will have an opportunity of referring to them at your lei- 
sure. ‘This doctrine has now been adopted and fully settled in the United States 
Courts. This was done in the case of Vidall vs. Girard’s Executors, 2 Howard’s 
Reports, 195. The subject had been enveloped in some doubt by a decision made 


294 


by that Court in the Baptist Association vs. Hart’s Executors, 4 Wheaton’s Re- 
ports. In this case a doubt had been raised, whether these charitable uses were 
recognised at all by the law of England, except as they were protected and enforced 
under the statute of Elizabeth. In the case of Burr’s Executors vs. Smith, 7 Ver- 
mont Reports, where the subject was investigated, that decision of the Supreme 
Court in the 4th of Wheaton was not followed, and a vast variety of authorities were 
cited, showing conclusively that this law of charitable use existed in England long 
prior to the statute of Elizabeth; and there was as much evidence, I think I may 
venture to say more evidence, in support of that head of equity existing anterior to 
the reign of Elizabeth, than of any other equity doctrine whatever that can be ad- 
duced. That case of the Baptist Association, however, was regarded in various 
State courts as authority for some time, but it was finally abandoned in the case in 
2 Howard. I will refer the Court to a case in Georgia, Beale vs. Fox, 4 Georgia 
Reports, 404, where you will find that subject ably treated and fully investigated ; 
and I think it may now be put down as settled, that this law of charitable uses exists 
at common law, independently of the statute of Elizabeth, and that it is enforced 
wherever the common law prevails, and wherever charities exist of this public kind, 
although the statute of Elizabeth may not have been introduced. 

A question, however, arises here which I shall briefly consider, because it is of 
some importance to the case, and that is, whether this law has been repealed in this State 
by the Revised Statutes. This charity was created, of course, long prior to the in- 
troduction of these Revised Statutes. But it may be said, if it has been repealed by 
the Revised Statutes, all the property of this Book Concern acquired since such 
repeal, and which is now held by subsequent acquisitions, is not protected by the law 
of charitable use. J must admit in candour that there has been one decision in one 
of our Supreme Courts—I mean one of those various Supreme Courts which have 
been lately created in this State—which goes the length of declaring that they have 
been repealed. But I apprehend it has not yet gained such a footing in this State 
as to be considered as settled law ; and I think your Honours will come to the con- 
clusion that it is entirely fallacious. There are two grounds upon which this doc- 
trine rests. One is, that the chapter in the Revised Statutes which treats of trusts 
begins by stating that all trusts are abolished, except those contained in that chapter. 
Your Honours are perfectly aware that general words are always construed in refer- 
ence to the particular subject-matter; and you will find that that whole chapter 
treats of private trusts, not of public trusts and public uses, which are entirely differ- 
ent ; and it is confined, too, to private trusts of real property. It does not touch 
personal estate ; it does not touch charitable uses. Every man, who is at all fami- 
liar with the doctrine of charitable uses, knows perfectly well that it is as different 
from the law of private trusts as public crimes are different from private trespasses. 
And you might just as well contend that a statute which made especial provision in 
regard to private trespasses, covered and applied to public crimes, as to say that a 
statute which makes provision in regard to private trusts of real property, has any 
bearing upon public charitable uses. They are entirely different in their nature and 
in their character. ‘They are always treated differently, and they are generally treated 
in authors separately and distinctly. I took occasion the other day to look over the 
law of trust as it is explained in “ Tickling on Equitable Estates,” the object of which 
is to show the analogy between equitable interests created by trusts, and legal estates. 
There is not one word in that book upon the subject of charitable uses. And on the 
contrary, in works which treat of charitable uses, such as Duke and Shelford, you 
find nothing on the subject of private trusts, unless it is in some particular case where 
an analogy exists, and where it is followed out. 


a a 


295 


There is another ground relied upon for the purpose of showing that all these cases 
of charitable uses are repealed by the Revised Statutes, and that is the provision 
which is contained in those statutes in regard to perpetuities. They are brought 
within narrower limits. The alienation of property shall not be prevented now be- 
yond two lives in being at the creation of the estate, and inasmuch as in the case of 
charitable uses the equitable interest is in perpetuity, it has been held that that 
repeals the whole doctrine of charitable uses. May it please your Honours, the law 
of perpetuity itself as it has always been understood in England and in this country, 
was in perfect harmony with the existence of these charitable uses. It was never 
considered as extending to these public uses beyond the legal estate, and yet the law 
of perpetuity has always been enforced. Before the creation of this provision in the 
Revised Statutes, the restriction in alienation extended only to lives in being at the 
creation of the estate ; but the Revised Statutes confined it to two lives, and that is 
the difference between them. Well, now, will it be pretended that a mere alteration 
in the law of perpetuity, as to the time of its continuance, has the effect of extending 
it to a subject which was never embraced in that law at all—to a public use? Your 
Honours are aware that after the decision upon Thellison’s will, the Thellison act 
was passed, which made an alteration, and imposed some new restrictions upon the 
law of perpetuity, but what lawyer in Westminster Hall ever dreamed that that 
altered and destroyed the law of charitable uses? Now, why should an alteration in 
the mere time of continuance of the perpetuity in our statutes have the effect of 
abolishing the law of charitable uses? Real estate could always be alienated under 
the law of charitable uses, but it is done under the sanction of a court of chancery. 
If the alienation of the legal estate in real property, therefore, was protected, under 
the law of perpetuity, it could not be bound up beyond the limits which the law of 
perpetuity allowed. The equitable use was always an exception to that law, so far 
forth as the equitable use continued attached to the property in which the proceeds 
of the alienation was invested, and I apprehend that there is nothing in the Revised 
Statutes which has, in any particular whatever, altered that exception ; and that you 
will, therefore, consider in this case, that the law of charitable use applies to all this 
property, as well that which has been acquired since as that which was acquired be- 
fore the Revised Statutes went into effect. 

It is true, in some few cases, since the adoption of that code, the legislature have 
authorized and regulated the holding of this kind of property, but it has been done at 
the instance of applicants, out of abundant caution. In the same way special pro- 
visions have been inserted in manufacturing charters, like those in the general act, 
applicable to all such companies. It would be a poor compliment to the revisers who 
assisted in framing that code, to suppose that they would recommend the entire aboli- 
tion of this law, and throw all the property invested—and which, from the nature of 
things, will continue to be invested in that way while Christianity lasts—completely 
afloat. 

Having considered the general elements of a charitable use, with a view to this 
claim for a division of the property, I shall next consider them in reference to this 
particular case. You will find here all the elements which I have already considered 
as existing ordinarily in the creation of a charitable use. You have the founders of 
this charity. Who are the founders? Those who originally advanced the funds ; 
and you have those, too, who have subsequently taken up those funds, and by indus- 
try, exertion, and cultivation, have improved and enlarged them from some 3,000 or 
4,000 dollars, to some 700,000 or 800,000. All these persons are the contributors to 
this charity. Some, perhaps, originally contributed money ; others have contributed 
their services and labours; but they all constitute contributions to this charitable 


296 


fund; and all who have participated in the original creation or in the accumulation 
of this fund, are to be considered as the contributors of this charity. You have, in 
the next place, the trustees to hold the legal estate subject to this trust. They are 
now brought before this Court as defendants to this suit. It sometimes happens that 
more than one of these different offices or functions are vested in the same persons. 
Sometimes the trustees are also the managers of the charity. Sometimes they are 
distinct. In this case the functions are distinct. The managers of this charity are 
the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America—the Methodist 
Episcopal Church as an organized, ecclesiastical institution, acting in an organized 
form. ‘There is one additional peculiarity about this charity, to which I will call the 
attention of the Court, and that is, that the managers of the charity themselves exist 
under the law of charitable uses. ‘The Methodist Episcopal Church, as an ecclesias- 

tical body, entitled to hold property, entitled to temporalities, entitled to legal privi- 
leges, holds them all under the law of charitable or pious uses, and the institution 
itself exists under that law. In this case, however, we are to look upon them prin- 
cipally as the managers of this charity. And how are they to manage it? They 
manage it through their General Conference and their annual conferences, all 
participating, in their respective spheres, in the management of this concern, and in 
the distribution of the profits among the beneficaries. The General Conference 
performs its functions. It takes the general direction and superintendency over the 
whole concern; it appoints the trustees and changes the trustees. The annual 

conferences perform their functions. They seek out the beneficiaries who are 
entitled to relief, and in their respective local jurisdictions, after receiving from 
the trustees their respective shares of the income, distribute those shares among the 

various beneficiaries within their respective local jurisdictions. Here you have the 

managers of this fund. In the last place, you have the beneficiaries. Who are they! 

They are the superannuated and supernumerary travelling preachers of the Church, 

their wives and children, and, in the case of death, their widows and children. They 
are the beneficiaries of this charity. They take this income as it is thus doled out 
in charity, and they take it as answering the description of beneficiaries. They 
must be designatio personarum of the charity, to entitle them to take anything; and 
if they do not answer that description, they are entitled to nothing. What is that 
description? Is it all poor persons, paupers, who happen to be within the territorial 
jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church? Not at all. Is it all ministers who 
are superannuated, and who are entitled to relief on a claim of relief? Not at all. 

Is it all Methodist ministers? By no means. It is the superannuated and supernu- 

merary ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of that body thus organized— 
that body under whose auspices this fund was originally created, and under whose 
management and direction this fund has subsequently accumulated. They are the 
beneficiaries. They must answer that description to entitle them to take. If they 
do not answer it, they cannot take. In order to answer to that description, what 
must they be? They must be of the Methodist Episcopal Church. And what is 
this Methodist Episcopal Church? It is a unity. It is a body, not exactly incorpo- 

rated under the law, but it is a body possessing, to a certain extent—so far as respects 

its charitable purposes, and in a court of equity, and in reference to property—a 
corporate capacity. It has precisely in equity that sort of a capacity, which an 
association of individuals, who are not a mere partnership or a tenancy in common, 

at law have, when they are at liberty to act in a certain collective capacity, if not 

actually clothed with all the powers and attributes of a corporation. Your Honours 

are aware of the existence of that class of bodies generally called quasi corporations, 

and that is the character in a court of equity of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 


297 


And in all charitable uses, the bodies and individuals when they take under the cha- 
rity, in succession, take in that guasz corporate capacity. 

I will refer the Court, upon this subject, to a passage or two, in the opinion of the 
Court, inthe case of Decow vs. Hendrickson. It is fully reported, but not in any 
regular Book of Reports. It is a leading case in this country upon this subject ; and 
the opinion is collected in a book, as it was delivered in the Court below, by Chief 
Justice Ewing, who, as every one acquainted with him knows, was a very profound 
lawyer. He bestowed upon this subject a vast deal of attention. I will read from 
pp- 21 and 39 of the opinion. He is describing the yearly meeting of the Society of 
Friends, which is held in Philadelphia, which was never incorporated. It was an 
ecclesiastical institution. The property in question, in this case, was under that re- 
ligious institution, the yearly meeting being at its head. The question which arose 
in that case was, which of the subordinate meetings, which had become divided, and 
claimed this property, was entitled to it. In order to settle that question, as there 
had been a division in the head of the Church, the yearly meeting—which, in this 
particular, answers to this General Conference in the Methodist Episcopal Church— 
it became important to inquire into the character of that body, and which of those 
two separate institutions was the legitimate yearly meeting. What I now read is 
the description he gives of that body, as a charitable use protected under its law, and 
according to which law that case was to be decided. He says, at page 21,— 


‘“‘This body was not a mere incidental, casual, disconnected assemblage, convening 
without previous arrangement, ceasing to exist when its members separated, and 
formed anew when individuals came together again at some subsequent time. It 
was a regularly organized and established body, holding stated sessions, correspond- 
ing with other bodies of the same religious denomination, consulting together for the 
welfare of a portion of their Church and its members, the ultimate arbiter of all dif- 
ferences, and the common head and governor of all belonging to the Society of 
Friends within its jurisdiction, which extended over the territories just mentioned, 
while they were called Provinces, and since they assumed the name and rank of 
States. The meetings of this body were annually held, as its name imports, and as 
long and steady usage has wrought into a part of its structure. 'The time and place 
of convention are subject to its control, and have accordingly, in several instances, 
been fixed and altered by it. The time and place, however, when and where only the 
body can constitutionally assemble and act, must, when fixed, so remain, until the 
voice of the body, in a yearly meeting capacity, which alone has the power and right 
to govern its own proceedings, shall resolve on and enact a change.” 


I will read another passage from p. 39. Speaking of a resolution of this body, he 
says :— 


“The resolve was an act, not of private or individual benevolence, but of this 
meeting in its collective capacity.” 


If this meeting is to be considered an organized body, having existence in an or- 
ganized form, and as such performing functions and having a “collective capacity,” 
the consequence is that it is of a corporate character so far. You will find this same 
doctrine laid down in Shelford on Montmaine, p. 712. The case of M’Gurr vs. Aaron, 
in 2d Pennsylvania Reports, was one where this same doctrine came up. In 
that case the property was limited to the support of a minister of a certain Church 
and his successors. Why, your Honours are aware that no property can be limited 
in that way, under any legal title, or in any creation of any private trust, and in such 
cases the property cannot goto successors. Yet, under this law of charitable use, it 
can be limited to the successors. In these cases of charitable uses, the majority, asa 
general rule, dispose of the property, and that doctrine is laid down in Shelford on 
Charitable Uses, p. 712. But in the case of private property held by a private asso- 


298 


ciation of individuals, a majority cannot control it. Each one has a right, asa tenant 
in common, to his respective share, and he can alienate that right. But the majority 
of the individuals have no control over it. But that is not so in the case of a chari- 
table use. An attempt was made, in a private association, to transfer the property, 
by a majority, without all joining, and it was decided to be unavailable, in the case of 
Livingston vs. Lynch, 4 Johnson’s Reports, 573. 

If I am right in this view of the subject, then we have a case where these benefi- 
ciaries take no vested title ; nothing that they can dispose of ; nothing that they can 
claim in any other way than simply under the management of this charity, and they 
must necessarily answer the description of the objects of the charity. How do they 
overcome this doctrine on the other side? On what does that decision in the Mays- 
ville case rest? The gentleman tells us that this property is not given—that it is no 
donation—that it was acquired by these travelling preachers? Suppose it was; 
does that alter the case? Who were to claim it? Can the travelling ministers 
claim it? Have they in fact devoted the fund to their own private use, as an asso- 
ciation of individuals? Nothing like it. On the contrary, they have devoted it toa 
certain purpose, and that is, such that the income is to be bestowed upon the superan- 
nuated, supernumerary travelling ministers, their wives, widows, and children. 
These are the individuals upon whom it is bestowed. These are the persons who are 
entitled to the income. ‘The travelling ministers, therefore, cannot claim it. It is, 
so far as they are concerned, a donation by them to the Church, and they, the trus- 
tees, hold it in trust, not for them as donors and founders, but for the individuals who 
are the objects of charity. It is, therefore, just as mucha case of donation, as if one 
individual should bestow a capital of one hundred thousand dollars, for the purpose of 
applying the income to the support of these supernumerary and superannuated minis- 
ters. It is no answer to this to tell us, that some of these persons who become su- 
pernumerary and superannuated ministers, may originally have contributed a portion 
of this fund. That does not alter the case. That gives them no greater right, nor 
does it deprive them of any benefit. 

Let me illustrate my view of the case upon this branch of the subject, because it is 
a main point on the otherside. Let us suppose aclass of mechanics in New-York— 
for instance, masons—should create a fund; that each should contribute a certain 
sum, say five dollars a year; that it should be put into the hands of trustees to be 
managed ; that a certain religious society should be appointed managers of that fund ; 
and that the profits should, from time to time, be distributed among the superannu- 
ated mechanics of that description, their wives, widows, and children: would not that 
be a charitable use? Unquestionably it would. Here would be a donation. It 
would not be a donation of one individual, or of a few individuals ; it would be a do- 
nation by a body of men. It would be a donation devoted toa charity. It would be 
a donation devoted to persons answering a certain description. ‘They would be, of 
course, a portion of those who had originally contributed, some more, some less, some 
perhaps lately come in, and become superannuated, before they contributed anything 
at all: it would be a charitable use. It would have all the elements of a charity ; it 
would have the donors; the trustees, the managers, and the beneficiaries. 

Let me suppose another case. Suppose that some fifty of these mechanics should 
contribute certain funds, that should be put into the hands of trustees to be managed 
for the purposes of speculation, and the profits to be divided, not among certain be- 
neficiaries, objects of charity, who answer a certain description, from time to time, 
but among the donors themselves, in proportion to theirrespective shares. Here they 
would be entitled to it as tenants in common. They would have private rights. 
They would have the power of alienating their respective portions of the fund, and 


299 


bringing in others as their alienees, as tenants in common, and be entitled, at any 
time, to make a division of that property, and on a division, each would take a rata- 
ble proportion of the original funds and property of the concern, with the accumula- 
tions. That illustrates the distinction between these tenancies in common in a private 
trust, and a case of charitable use. In the latter case, all would have to jom in a 
suit ; all could bring a suit ; all might alienate the entire property ; any one indi- 
vidual could alienate his portion of the property at any time; and it would be per- 
fectly immaterial whether they held it at law or in equity, because there is a complete 
analogy between private trusts in equity and a legal estate as protected by the com- 
mon law. But in the case ofa charitable use it is entirely different ; and I will take 
the liberty, in order to explain this doctrine further, and show the distinction, to refer 
your Honours to the existence of this doctrine as it stood before it was introduced 
into the common law. I will read from 7 Vermont Reports, 246 :— 


“The doctrine of charitable uses had its origin in the civil law. Hence it spread 
through the different countries of modern Europe. 

“ In Domat’s Civil Law, vol. 2, pp. 168, 169, 170, (book iv, § vii,) are the following 
passages: ‘ Legacies to pious uses are those legacies that are destined to some work 
of charity, whether they relate to spiritual or temporal concerns. Thus a legacy of 
ornaments for a church, a legacy for the maintenance of a clergyman, to instruct 
poor children, and a legacy for their sustenance, are legacies to pious uses. 

‘“«* We may make this a just difference between legacies to pious uses and the 
other sorts of legacies, that the name of legacies to pious uses is properly given only 
to those legacies which are destined to some work of piety and charity, and which 
have their motives independent of the consideration which the merit of the legatees 
might procure them; whereas the other legacies have their motives confined to the 
consideration of some particular person, or are destined to some other use than to a 
work of piety and charity. 

“¢ All legacies which have not for their motive the particular consideration of some 
person, are not for all that of the number of legacies to pious uses, although they be 
destined for a public good, if that good be any other than a work of piety or charity. 
Thus a legacy destined for some public ornament, such as the gate of a city, for the 
embellishment or conveniency of some public place, and others of the like nature, or 
a legacy of a prize to be given to some person who should excel others in some art 
or science, would be legacies of another nature than those to pious uses. 

“«<Tf a pious legacy were destined to some use which could not have its effect—as 
if a testator had left a legacy for building a church for a parish, or an apartment in a 
hospital, and it happened either that before his death the said church or said apart- 
ment had been built out of some other fund, or that it was no ways necessary or use- 
ful—the legacy would not, for all that, remain without any use, but it would be laid 
out on other works of piety for that parish or for that hospital, according to the direc- 
tions that should be given in this matter by the persons to whom this function should 
belong. 

ce nce legacies for works of piety and charity have a double favour, both that of 
their motive for holy and pious uses and that of their utility for the public good, they 
are considered as being privileged in the intention of the law.’ ” 


Your Honours see all the elements of a charitable use as it exists in our courts of 
equity, and as it exists independent entirely of the statute of Elizabeth. It was de- 
rived from the civil law, into which it was introduced by the emperors after Chris- 
tianity became the law of the empire. It exists in the nature of things wherever 
Christianity exists, because wherever Christianity does exist there will be charity, 
there will be the founders of these public charities for the benefit of individuals who 
may come into being long after the founder is laid inhis grave. ‘Therefore, to abolish 
this law, to undertake to destroy it, would be nothing more nor less than placing this 
kind of property beyond the pale of the law. That would be the effect and the only 
effect. 


300 


You find that when the court in Kentucky is freed from the influence of this par- 
ticular subject, and is called upon to decide on these cases, it applies this doctrine 
very fully and very forcibly. I will refer the Court to a case in 7 Ben. Monroe’s 
Reports, 611, 618, and 621, where you will find the doctrine fully developed. That 
was acase of a devise of property for the dissemination of the Gospel. Well, now 
every lawyer knows that such a devise, such a disposition of property, according to 
any other law, would be invalid, for want of the requisite certainty as to persons. 
But it was protected there under the law of charitable uses, and devoted to those 
public and religious purposes, and a court of equity would see that it was administered 
according to some scheme devised to carry the charity into effect. 

I therefore submit to your Honours that the view taken of this subject on the other 
side, that here is property which has been acquired by these beneficiaries, that they 
have a vested right to it, and that they can divide it among themselves, as so many 
tenants in common, is without any foundation, and that they must, in order to claim 
this property, take it as beneficiaries answering the description contained in the 
foundation of this charity. Some of these may, perhaps, have contributed a little, 
many of them have contributed nothing at all. Many of these ministers who have 
contributed may never receive any of the bounty. In order to entitle these plaintiffs, 
as representing the beneficiaries of this Church, to recover any portion of this fund, 
they must make out, to your satisfaction, that they answer the description of that 
charity ; that they are the representatives of travelling, supernumerary, superan- 
nuated ministers, their wives, widows, and children, belonging to the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, the institution which originally created this charity, under which 
it is protected, and according to the original principles upon which the charity was 
founded. It will not dofor them to say they are Methodists. It will not do for them 
to say that they have adopted all the laws, and regulations, and discipline, and 
government, and all the faith and dectrines that were acknowledged in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, which was in existence when this charity was formed, and under 
whose auspices it has been accumulated to the immense amount it has. It will not 
do for them to advance any doctrine of that kind. But they must make out that at 
the time they filed the bill they were members of this Methodist Episcopal Church, 
and that they are entitled, as members of this Church, to a portion of this fund, or 
that they, as agents, represent them, and that in the administration of that charity 
they stand in that position. 

Now, they tell us that they do stand in that position. There is no difficulty here 
about the fundamental doctrines of the Church. ‘The question arises upon topics re- 
lating to the discipline and government. There has been no split in this Church 
upon any fundamental rule of faith, or Christian belief. There is nothing of that 
kind. But they claim that they are a portion of that same Methodist Episcopal 
Church divided, and that although they are divided, yet they are sufficiently identified 
to entitle them to a portion of the corpus of this estate, and to entitle the persons an- 
swering the description of being supernumerary or superannuated ministers, their 
wives, widows, and children, as beneficiaries, to take it. According to the argument, 
so far as I have been able'to gather it, they claim on two grounds: First, on the 
ground of an agreement between the members of this Church, thus constitutionally 
representing the whole Church, and composing its head—the General Conference— 
to divide the Church, to form two separate institutions, and yet identical with the 
Church, each party representing it in succession and continuance, and each party en- 
titled to its ecclesiastical privileges and private rights of property. Inthe next place, 
they contend, that if the agreement does not umount to this, and independent of the 
agreement there has been a division in this Church, that that division and separation 


301 


of this body from the other, the majority, was rendered necessary and indispensable 
by the misconduct of the defendants, and therefore they are entitled to a portion of 
this fund in equity. These I take to be the two grounds upon one or the other of 
which they must rest their claim. 

Now, in the first place, I assume there was an absolute agreement to divide this 
Church. That agreement, they tell us, is contained in the report of the committee 
of nine, which was made in the General Conference of 1844, and adopted by that body. 
Under that agreement they say they are entitled to set up the Southern branch, 
which they call a division of the same Church, and under which they are entitled, in 
equity, to claim a relative proportion of the corpus, and of course a relative propor- 
tion of the profits of this fund. I may here remark, that your Honours have no- 
thing to do with the ecclesiastical privileges any further than as they are connected 
with the subject of property ; but wherever a trust is created, which trust is in some 
measure identified with or dependant upon the ecclesiastical institutions, you will 
inquire into the subject of these institutions, in order to settle the question properly. 
It is in that way and in that point of view that you get jurisdiction over that branch 
of the subject. You are aware that in all cases where the Court has a jurisdiction 
over a particular subject, if it becomes necessary, in order to settle the right of pro- 
perty, to inquire into some collateral matter over which the Court has no direct juris- 
diction at all, they will investigate it in order to settle that right of property ; and in 
that point of view a court of common law will inquire into a maritime subject when it 
becomes necessary to do it, as a collateral matter, to settle some question of property 
over which the common law court has direct jurisdiction. Mere ecclesiastical ques- 
tions you have nothing to do with directly, and in themselves, and there are no tri- 
bunals in this country connected with the government of the country which have any 
control over them. There is in this country a complete separation of Church and 
State. But you will inquire into ecclesiastical matters wherever a trust is created 
which is dependant in any measure upon the existence and character of the ecclesi- 
astical institutions. Here there is this complete connexion. ‘This property is placed 
under the control and direction of this Methodist Episcopal Church. They are to be 
the managers of this fund. Well, in order to settle the question, when two parties 
claim the property, or claim the control over any portion of it, you must inquire into 
that Methodist Episcopal Church, where it is, who compose it, and who are the per- 
sons entitled to the direction of it. In no other way can you settle this question of 
property. You are therefore led, necessarily, to investigate it collaterally, with the 
view to settle the question of jurisdiction over the property. You must find out who 
compose the Methodist Episcopal Church now, and at the time this suit was brought. 
Who are they? Are they the plaintiffs or the defendants? Has it been legitimately 
and legally divided in reference to the matter of property, so that both can claim it? 
Or is the Methodist Episcopal Church still connected and identified with the defen- 
dants in this case? If it is, the plaintiffs are entitled to nothing. They can claim 
nothing. 

Hence, you inquire into this matter, and you will observe in this case that there 
is something more than a connexion arising from the management of the property, 
because you find out that these beneficiaries must be members of this very Church 
to entitle them to take. It often happens that the management of a charity is in the 
hands of persons who are in no way connected with the beneficiaries, otherwise than 
merely as individuals to conduct it, and to distribute the profits among the benefici- 
aries. But here you see a complete connexion. The Methodist Episcopal Church 
is entitled to the management of this charity, and not only so, but it is to be distributed 
among beneficiaries, which beneficaries are to be, and continue to be from time to 


302 


time, members of that very Methodist Episcopal Church. They are, therefore, com- 
pletely identified with it ; and there is another important consideration, whenever a 
a charity is given to pious purposes to be distributed among the officers of the Church, 
it is considered as given in ease of the Church. You will find that doctrine very 
fully illustrated in the case of McGurr vs. Aaron, in 2 Pennsylvania Reports, to 
which I have already referred. If property is given to a charity to be distributed in 
support of the ministers of a Church and their successors, it is intended and is con- 
sidered as being given by the founders for the benefit of the entire Church, and in 
ease of it. There is, therefore, that connexion between the Church in this case and 
the beneficiaries, and it is indispensable, to come to a right decision of this case, that 
you should find out who are this Methodist Episcopal Church which was in existence 
at the foundation of this charity, which has been in existence during its accumulation 
and continuance, and which was in existence at the time this suit was brought. 

Now, as to the agreement to divide the Church, I may say, in the first place, that 
I might take this objection which has already been laid before the Court, that this 
agreement is prospective and contingent, and has never been consummated ; and the 
further objection, that the General Conference, as a delegated body, has no power, 
without the concurrence of the annual conferences, to make such a division. When 
I say they have no power to divide the Church, I speak in reference to this property, 
because the annual conferences are managers of this charity as well as the General 
Conference. But waving for the present the further consideration of this branch of 
the case, and assuming that there had been a present agreement instead of one that 
was executory, and that it has been consummated, then an inquiry arises, Has there 
been a division of the Church? has there been any agreement to that effect? This 
split in the Church may have been effected by an agreement in two ways :—it may 
have been an agreement to divide the Church into two separate branches, creating 
two new Churches in the place of the one which before existed ; or it may have been 
an agreement that the Methodist Episcopal Church should remain, and that this 
other portion should be detached from it, and should form a separate independent 
Church. Your Honours will see at once that there is a vast difference between 
these two modes of proceeding. ‘The first would necessarily destroy that Methodist 
Episcopal Church which was previously in existence, and would form two new 
Churches in the place of it. The last would leave that Church in existence already 
formed and operating, and there would be a mere division or separation from it, to 
form a new and separate Church, leaving the old body to stand, and leaving the new 
to be formed and created into a separate, distinct, and new body. There is just the 
difference in this case that there would be between cutting off a man’s leg, leaving 
the person remaining, and dividing the body, and thus destroying it ; the difference 
between maiming a man and killing him. 

If this matter of agreement is allowed to speak for itself, there is no difficulty in 
discovering what was intended. I will refer your Honours to the first volume of 
these Proofs, p. 129, where we have the so-called ‘ Plan of Separation.” It is upon 
this that the plaintiffs stand, and must stand, if they can stand at all, and if I com- 
prehend it, they leave the old Church remaining, and they separate from it, and form 
a new Church. I read the 2d resolution :— 


‘That ministers, local and travelling, of every grade and office in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, may, as they prefer, remain in that Church, or, without blame, 
attach themselves to the Church, South.” 


“ They may remain in that Church, or, without blame, attach themselves to the 
Church, South.” Can anybody misunderstand this? Did they not intend that that 


303 


Methodist Episcopal Church should still continue in existence, that it should remain, 
and that they, in case their Southern conferences found it necessary, should form a 
new and separate Church, to be the Church, South? Read the 4th resolution :— 


“That whenever the annual conferences, by a vote of three-fourths of all 
their members voting on the third resolution, shall have concurred in the re- 
commendation to alter the sixth restrictive article, the agents at New-York and 
Cincinnati shall, and they are hereby authorized and directed to deliver over to any 
authorized agent or appointee of the Church, South, should one be organized, all 
notes and book accounts against the ministers, Church-members, or citizens within 
its boundaries, with authority to collect the same for the sole use of the Southern 
Church, and that said agents also convey to the aforesaid agent or appointee of the 
South all the real estate, and assign to him all the property, including presses, stock, 
and all right and interest connected with the printing establishments at Charleston, 
Richmond, and Nashville, which now belong to the Methodist Episcopal Church.”’ 


And you will find that throughout this whole agreement they speak of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church as intended to remain, and treat themselves as separated from it, 
and as forming a new Church, South. Well they goon. At Louisville they form 
this Church, and how do they consider it? Let us look at the 2d volume of Proofs, 
p- 59. They resolve,— 


“That it is right, expedient, and necessary, to erect the annual conferences repre- 
sented in this Convention, into a distinct ecclesiastical Connexion, separate from the 
jurisdiction of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as at pre- 
sent constituted ; and accordingly, we, the delegates of said annual conferences, 
acting under the provisional Plan of Separation adopted by the General Conference 
of 1844, do solemnly declare the jurisdiction exercised over said annual conferences, 
by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, entirely dissolved ; 
and that said annual conferences shall be and they hereby are constituted, a separate 
ecclesiastical Connexion, under the provisional Plan of Separation aforesaid, and 
based upon the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, comprehending the 
doctrines and entire moral, ecclesiastical, and economical rules and regulations of 
said Discipline, except only in so far as verbal alterations may be necessary to a 
distinct organization, and to be known by the style and title of the Mrruopist 
Episcopat Cuurcu, Sour.” 


Can anybody read this without seeing what the design is'—that they mean to 
leave the old Methodist Episcopal Church to stand, and that they mean they will 
separate from it and form a new Connexion, speaking of themselves as separatists, 
and taking the new name of The Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

Well, now, we have their agreement. The purpose is too plain to be mistaken. 
It speaks for itself. I am aware it has been stated in that Maysville case, that a 
Church may change its name, and that, therefore, the name is a matter of very little 
importance. But I apprehend, that when a Church does not change its name ; 
where the name remains, and where a portion goes off, separates, and takes a new 
organization and a new name, leaving the old name and old organization to remain, 
that is a circumstance of very considerable importance, and ought to be attended to 
in all cases of this kind. And I think the Court will have no hesitation in coming to 
the conclusion, that the intention here of the parties in this agreement, and as carried 
out by the Southern conferences, at the Louisville Convention, was that the Church 
should remain the Methodist Episcopal Church, and that a new Church should be 
formed, and that they should be looked upon as separatists, and take a new name. 
Well, what is the effect of such a separation by agreement between the parties? 
If any subject can be considered as settled, I apprehend this is settled by the law 
of the land, that they leave behind them, under such an agreement, the property of 
the Church, which belongs to the body that remains. I will take the liberty of reading 


304 


a passage from a case which was referred to by the counsel concerned with me, the 
case of Baker vs. Fales, 16 Massachusetts Reports, p. 503 :— 


“Tf a Church may subsist unconnected with any congregation or religious society, 
as has been urged in argument, it is certain that it has no legal qualities, and more 
especially that it cannot exercise any control over property which it may have held 
in trust for the society with which it had been formerly connected. That any num- 
ber of the members of a Church, who disagree with their brethren, or with the minis- 
ter, or with the parish, may withdraw from fellowship with them, and act as a Church 
in a religious point of view, having the ordinances administered and other religious 
offices performed, it is not necessary to deny ; indeed this would be a question pro- 
per for an ecclesiastical council to settle, if any should dispute their clam. But as 
to all civil purposes, the secession of a whole Church from the parish would be an 
extinction of the Church; and it is competent to the members of the parish to insti- 
tute a new Church, or to engraft one upon the old stock, if any of it should re- 
main, and this new Church would succeed to all the rights of the old, in relation to 
the parish. This is not only reasonable, but it is conformable to the usages of the 
country ; for although many mstances may have occurred of the removal of Church 
members from one Church, or one place of worship to another, and no doubt a re- 
moval of a majority of the members has sometimes occurred, we do not hear of any 
Church ceasing to exist, while there were members enough left to do Church ser- 
vice. No particular number is necessary to constitute a Church, nor is there any 
established quorum, which would have a right to manage the concerns of the body. 
According to the Cambridge platform, chap. 3, § 4, the number is to be no larger 
than can conveniently meet together in one place, nor ordinarily fewer than may 
conveniently carry on Church work. It would seem to follow from the very struc- 
ture of such a body as this, which is a mere voluntary association, that a diminution 
of its numbers will not affect its identity. A Church may exist, im an ecclesiastical 
sense, without any officers, as will be seen in the platform ; and without doubt, in 
the same sense, a Church may be composed only of femmes-covert and minors, who 
have no civil capacity. The only circumstance, therefore, which gives a Church any 
legal character, is its connexion with some regularly constituted society ; and those 
who withdraw from the society cease to be members of that particular Church, and 
the remaining members continue to be the identical Church. This is analogous to 
the separation of towns and parishes—the effect of which, by law, is to leave the 
original body politic entire, with its powers and privileges undiminished, however 
large may be the proportion which secedes. And so it is of ail voluntary societies, 
having funds to be disposed of to charitable uses, in any particular place. A re- 
fusal of a majority of the members to act, would devolve all power over the subject 
upon those who might choose to persevere.” 


This shows that in all these cases where there is a separation, if the old Church 
remains, even if the majority go away, it still contmues the old Church, and, as you 
find it decided in that case, retain all the rights and all the property of the Church. 
A number of other cases might be cited from the Massachusetts Reports, but I ap- 
prehend it would be unnecessary, and that the doctrine is firmly settled without 
dispute. In the case in 9 Barr’s Pennsylvania Reports, part 321, you will find the 
same doctrine laid down, that the Church property belongs to those who adhere to 
the ecclesiastical government, though they are in the minority. Those who depart 
from the government of the Church are not to take the funds along with them. 
It is perfectly immaterial whether it is done by agreement or without agreement. If 
they leave the Church by consent they leave the property behind. It is very common 
in the case of corporations, to pass acts to separate a portion of a town, or a portion 
of a corporation. This is all done legitimately, just as strong as if there was a for- 
mal agreement ; but the new town, the new parish, the new Church, does not take any 
portion of the property with them. They leave that behind, and in all cases where 
there is a separation from the government, or departure from the doctrine of the 
Church, they also leave the property behind with the Church that remains, and they 


305 


cannot call for a division of property. I will call the attention of the Court to the 
case of the Attorney-General vs. Pearson, in 3 Merivale, beginning at p. 367. It 
is a very long case, and runs through a considerable portion of the book. 


‘Tn this case the defendants set up a plea that they were a majority of the con- 
gregation, and that they had united in the choice of another parson who was a Uni- 
tarian. ‘They had for many years been Trinitarians. In 1813, they made choice of 
a Unitarian clergyman, Steward, who afterwards, in 1816, became a Trinitarian 
clergyman. In consequence of this change an information was filed by the attorney- 
general. The chancellor decided that it being a trust for religious purposes, a 
court in equity would take complete jurisdiction—that in the formation and endow- 
ment of a chapel for religious worship, in which the kind was not mentioned, the 
Court would for explanation resort to usage—that it was not in the power of indivi- 
duals to change the purposes of such an institution, if only established for Trinitarian 
purposes it could not be converted to purposes anti-Trinitarian—and that the Court 
had nothing to do with religious doctrines, except to ascertain the purposes of the 
trust, and the Court is bound to determine that question.’ 


Here the original purposes of the trust were inquired into, if it were necessary to 
inquire into religious doctrines in order to ascertain them, and that party who seceded 
from the doctrines of the Church had no right to claim any portion of the funds. 
You will find the same doctrine in 2 Bligh’s Reports, 529, further in 2 Jacobs and 
Walker, 427, and in the case of Field vs. Field, 9 Wendell, 394, in the Supreme 
Court of this State, where there was a separation. That portion, though a minority, 
who adhered to the course of discipline and mode of proceeding marked out by the 
discipline and government of the Church, were entitled to the property. I will 
refer to the case of Den vs. Bolston, 7 Halstead’s Reports, 206. This was the case 
of a Dutch Reformed Church. Some persons set up a new classis—they have, in 
that Church, an ecclesiastical jurisdiction called the classis—and called themselves 
the True Dutch Reformed Church. In this particular case the congregation divided, 
and the question arose as to which party was entitled to the property. It was de- 
cided that those who had set up the new classis had ceased to be members of the 
Dutch Reformed Church, and could not carry the property away with them or call 
for a division of it. That is a case precisely in point. There was a case in which a 
portion of the Church, and I think it was a majority, undertook to form a new classis, 
and they took a new name, and called themselves “The True Dutch Reformed 
Church,” as in this case under consideration they here call themselves The Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, South. They claimed they had a right to a division of the 
funds, but the Court decided that, if they chose to leave the Church, to leave that 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction which was there formed and in existence, to form a new 
institution and take a new name, they could not claim any portion of the property. 
The old Church exists under a certain organism. It exists as a unit, and the body 
cannot be thus divided, so as to carry the property with them. And you will find 
the same doctrine in the case of the State vs. Crowell, 4 Halstead’s Reports, 390. 
This was the case of a Presbyterian Church at Perth Amboy. They had a clergy- 
man who was silenced in their Church by the Church judicatories ; but a large major- 
ity of the congregation, as many as three-fourths, remained attached to him. The 
Presbytery sent supplies. The majority refused to pay up the old subscription list, 
and set up a new subscription for the support of another minister, the one who had 
been silenced by the Church judicatories. Their language to the minority was, “ If 
you want supplies you must pay for them.’’ Here was a case, where, if this doctrine 
of separating and dividing would entitle the separatists to a portion of the property, 
they would have been entitled. They were a large majority. ‘They insisted upon 
adhering to the minister settled there. He had been silenced by the higher Church 


306 


judicatories, and the minority, who were disposed to adhere to the Church judicato- 
ries, elected a new pastor. The others refused to join with them, and claimed the 
property. The question was, which was entitled to it, or whether they were entitled 
to make a division of the property, as well as to secede from the Church. The Court 
decided that it belonged to that party which was identified with the Presbyterian 
Church, and adhered to its judicatories. 

I will not trouble the Court with the citation of any further authorities upon 
this point. There was one case, however, which was cited by the counsel on the 
other side, to which I will refer the Court—the case in 2 Russell’s Reports, 114,— 
where the pew-holders claimed the right to vote on the ground of their having a pro- 
perty, and interest, and consideration in the Church ; but according to the established 
discipline and government of the Church they were not entitled to vote, and it was 
decided, according to the discipline and government, that they had no right, and 
that they could claim no right to the property consequent upon a division grounded 
upon the refusal to allow them to vote. 

I submit then to your Honours, that there are two radical errors in the claim upon 
the other side, and two radical errors committed by the Court, in relation to two 
facts, when it undertook to carry out the claim in the Maysville case. They are— 
First, that in this case there was no agreement to divide the Church into two distinct 
parts fairly made; that, on the contrary, the agreement was that the Church should 
remain, and this particular body, constituting the minority of the Church, should be 
at liberty to withdraw and separate. That was the agreement. And in the next 
place, there was no agreement to divide the fund, and no right to have the fund 
divided. In this case the agreement required, so far as it goes to divide the fund, 
the concurrence of the annual conferences, which has never been obtained. If they 
rest on the agreement, they must take it as it is. Unless there has been that con- 
currence they have no right to set up the claim. 

I now come to consider the next ground of the claim on the other side, and that is, 
that in the absence of any agreement, and upon the supposition that there was no 
agreement, there has been such misconduct on the part of the defendants and those 
connected with them, constituting, as we say, the Methodist Episcopal Church, as 
warranted them in separating, and that they are entitled in consequence of that mis- 
conduct to recover a proportion of this property. As I have before observed, it is 
not pretended in this case that there has been any departure on the part of the de- 
fendants from the true doctrines of the Church. That cannot be pretended. The | 
complaint is, misconduct in the administration of the affairs of the Church, in its go- 
vernment or in its discipline ; and the misconduct all has reference to that most un- 
fortunate subject in this country, which seems to create trouble wherever it appears, 
in State and in Church—the subject of slavery. I apprehend upon this subject, the 
defendants, and their adherents, and the Methodist Episcopal Church, have carried 
out to the very letter the entire doctrines and regulations of the Church upon that 
important pomt, and that there is really no ground of complaint, on the part of 
the plaintiffs, agamst them for the manner in which they have deported themselves 
upon that delicate subject. There can be no pretence for alleging that this Methodist 
Society are abolitionists—I do not use that term in any disparaging sense ; I advert 
to it simply to designate a certain class of doctrines and positions which have been 
maintained. It cannot be pretended that this Church, as a Church, have adopted 
any of these doctrines. They have not undertaken to interfere with slavery, to 
abolish it. They have simply carried out those principles and views which have always’ 
existed in the Church, in which the brethren of the South have always concurred— 
views of a practical character, and which were designed to subserve the interests of 


20* 


a 


the Church, both North and South. They have not gone one jot or tittle further 
than the ancient, well settled, and established principles and usages of the Church 
would warrant. I do not mean to trouble the Court with going over the evi- 
dence upon this subject, as to what are the opinions and doctrines of this Church; 
that has been pretty fully developed already. I will barely make one or two remarks 
on that subject. 

In the early history of this Church, in this country, there certainly was, under the 
auspices of the foreign members who took the control of the government of it, a dis- 
position at once to abolish slavery, and they introduced such a provision as, if carried 
out, would lead to that result. But your Honours are aware that it was at once 
abandoned, and a rule of practical convenience was substituted in its place. They 
gave up all such pretensions. They adopted what ought to have been, and what 
was properly the true rule upon that subject—to let it alone, to leave the domestic 
institutions of the different States to the States themselves, and not to interfere with 
it any further than was necessary and convenient for the wholesome and conservative 
administration of the affairs of this Church. I might refer you to the address which 
was delivered to the British Conference upon this subject, which has already been 
read to the Court, which shows what their principles are. Their doctrines in 1804, 
settled down to this principle: individuals were at liberty to hold slaves or not, as 
they thought proper. Officers of the Church were required to free their slaves when 
it was practicable—when it was allowed in the States in which they lived. But as 
to the bishops, the doctrine never extended to them. It has always been maintained 
and held, that bishops should not be the holders of slaves, and we have this most 
important fact in the history of this Church, that until the time of Bishop Andrew, 
there never had been a slaveholding bishop in it. Prior to this time, at least two- 
thirds of the bishops had been taken from the Southern conferences, and all of them, 
without any apparent difficulty or dispute among them, had been men who neither 
owned nor held slaves. Bishop Andrew did not own or hold a slave at the time he 
was created a bishop. This is a most important circumstance upon this point. 
Usage, in the absence of any express provision, goes far. In the absence of express 
provision, I may say, it is conclusive upon what are the true principles of the Church. 
Ancient usage is the common law of the Church, and must govern it. In one of 
those cases to which I have called your attention, you will observe that ancient 
usage was resorted to, to ascertain what were the doctrines of the Church, and in 
order to ascertain the doctrines, with a view to settle the question of property. Now, 
when you find that in this Church one portion, and a very large portion of this ter- 
ritory, is slaveholding ; when you find, at the time of the creation of this Church, 
and for a long period, every State held slaves, the fact that no one of the bishops has 
ever been a slaveholder until the case of Bishop Andrew, and that he was not a 
slaveholder at the time of his appointment, I think it may be stated as conclusive 
evidence, that there has been a doctrine in this Church, well settled and constantly 
acted upon, to elect to that important office no person who was a holder of slaves. 
Now, you observe that there is nothing in all this proceeding on the part of these 
Methodists, in their government and discipline, which is at all hostile to the existence 
of this domestic institution in the South. They, of course, believe it would be bet- 
ter not to have slaves if it could be avoided, but they adopt this belief upon the same 
principle that they would decide upon any abstract question; for instance, that it 
would be better that the serfs of Russia should not exist, or that the labouring, the 
manufacturing population of England should be in a much better condition than they 
are, which is really a great deal worse than the condition of our Southern slaves. 
They would hold all this in the abstract, and they consider the condition of the Rus- 


308 


sian serfs, and of the manufacturing and labouring population of England, as an evil 
in the abstract, as they consider slavery an evil, and they would endeavour, as far 
as practicable, to improve both; but they would not be so Quixotic as to undertake 
to abolish the institutions of Russia, or the institutions of England, when doubtless 
such an abolition would cause more evil than good, though it might be better if these 
portions of the human race were in a better condition, And for the same reason 
they would not undertake to abolish slavery in the United States. In that particular 
they leave each State to work out for itself. But in consequence of the opinions of 
many persons who are members of the Church, who are opposed to slavery, and in 
order to make the officers of their Church useful, and dispense the benefits of reli- 
gion through the whole territory of the Church, they have gone thus far. They have 
said that the travelling preachers and ministers of the Church shall emancipate their 
slaves where it is practicable, and that bishops shall not be elected when they are 
holders of slaves. 


Mr. Reverpy Jounson,—There is no positive rule on the subject. 


Mr. Woop,—I stated, as to the bishops, there was no express rule about it; but 
I have referred to the ancient and established usage as settling the common law in 
the Church, precisely as in the case already referred to, where the common and 
established usage in regard to the doctrines of the Church, settled, in the absence of 
any express provision, that that was a Trinitarian Church. 

Now, in this case, on what principle did they act?’ Why, it is no objection to a 
man in the slaveholding States that he does not own slaves. If a person not owning 
slaves, living in the slaveholding States, should be made a bishop, he is not the less 
acceptionable to the community because he does not own slaves; but when he 
comes to the free States, where many persons believe that slavery ought not to 
exist, and that he ought to manumit his slaves, it would destroy his usefulness, or 
greatly mar it, if he held slaves. They have simply adopted it as a conservative 
rule of action. I must call the attention of the Court to some passages in the Ad- 
dress which they made to the foreign conferences. In the address of the British 
Conference to the General Conference, page 64 of the First of the Proofs, is the 
following :— 


“ But while we freely indulge in sentiments such as these, we cannot forget that 
on one subject especially—the subject ‘of American slavery—you, our beloved 
brethren, are placed in circumstances of painful trial and perplexity. We enter, 
with brotherly sympathy, into the peculiar situation which you are now called to oc- 
cupy. But on this question, we beg to refer you to what occurs in our address to 
you from the Conference in 1836, a proper copy of which will be handed to you by 
our representative ; as also to the contents of the preceding letter of 1835. To the 
principles which we have affectionately but honestly declared in these two documents 
we still adhere, with a full conviction of their Christian truth and justice. 

“The time which has elapsed, and the events which have taken place, since the 
preparation of the above-mentioned papers, serve only to confirm us yet more in our 
views of the moral evil of slavery. Far be it from us to advocate violent and ill-con- 
sidered measures. We are, however, strongly and unequivocally of the opinion that 
it 1s, at this time, the paramount Christian duty of the ministers of our most merciful 
Lord in your country, to maintain the principle of opposition to slavery with earnest 
zeal, and unflinching firmness. May we not also be allowed, with the heart-felt soli- 
citude of fraternal love, to entreat that you will not omit or qualify the noble testi- 
mony which we have extracted, in a note to our address, from your Book of Disci- 
pline, but that you will continue to insert it there in its primitive and unimpaired 
Integrity.” 


I will read one or two passages from the answer to this :— 


309 


“ Of these United States, (to the government and laws of which, ‘ according to the 
division of power made to them by the Constitution of the Union, and the constitu- 
tions of the several States,’ we owe, and delight to render, a sincere and patriotic 
loyalty,)”’ [no “higher law” here set up,] ‘there are several which do not allow of 
slavery. ‘There are others in which it 1s allowed, and there are slaves; but the ten- 
dency of the laws, and the minds of a majority of the people, are in favour of eman- 
cipation. But there are others in which slavery exists so universally, and is so closely 
interwoven with their civil institutions, that both do the laws disallow of emancipa- 
tion, and the great body of the people (the source of laws with us) hold it to be trea- 
sonable to set forth anything, by word or deed, tending that way. Hach one of all 
these States is independent of the rest, and sovereign with respect to its internal 
government, (as much so as if there existed no confederation among them for ends 
of common interest,) and therefore it is impossible to frame a rule on slavery proper 
for our people in all the States alike. But our Church is extended through all the 
States, and as it would be wrong and unscriptural to enact a rule of discipline in op- 
position to the constitution and laws of the State on this subject, so also would it not 
be equitable or Scriptural to confound the positions of our ministers and people (so 
different as they are in different States) with respect to the moral question which 
slavery involves. 

“‘Wnder the administration of the venerated Dr. Coke, this plain distinction was 
once overlooked, and it was attempted to urge emancipation in all the States; but 
this attempt proved almost ruinous, and was soon abandoned by the doctor himself. 
While, therefore, the Church has encouraged emancipation in those States where the 
laws permit it, and allowed the freed man to enjoy freedom, we have refrained, for 
conscience’ sake, from all intermeddling with the subject in those other States where 
the laws make it criminal. And such a course we think agreeable to the Scriptures, 
and indicated by St. Paul’s inspired instruction to servants, in his First Epistle to the 
Corinthians, chap. vii, ver. 20, 21. For if servants were not to care for their servi- 
tude when they might not be free, though if they might be free they should use it 
rather, so neither should masters be condemned for not setting them free when they 
nught not do so, though if they might, they should do so rather. 'The question of 
the evil of slavery, abstractedly considered, you will readily perceive, brethren, is a 
very different matter from a principle or rule of Church discipline to be executed con- 
trary to, and in defiance of, the law of the land. Methodism has always been (ex- 
cept perhaps in the single instance above) eminently loyal and promotive of good 
order; and so we desire it may ever continue to be, both in Europe and America. 
With this sentiment we conclude the subject, adding only the corroborating language 
of your noble Missionary Society, by the revered and lamented Watson, in their 
instructions to missionaries,” &c. 


Now, I apprehend that no man, however sensitive he may be upon this subject of 
slavery, can see anything in the conduct of this Church with which to find fault. 
They are disposed to be eminently loyal, to submit to the laws and government of 
the country, to leave this domestic institution to those who are concerned with it, to 
let them act in their own way. If there is any evil in slavery, they must bear it; if 
there is any danger in any sudden abolition of it, they must be subjected to that dan- 
ger; and therefore they ought to be allowed to judge for themselves. ‘That is the 
doctrine of Methodism. Some of these early bishops, it is true, who were not fami- 
liar with our institutions, coming from abroad, undertook to go further, and meddle 
with this subject, and turn Quixotes in philanthropy, as there were formerly Quix- 
otes in knight-errantry. But they abandoned that very soon, and took a broad and 
practical ground. They allowed slavery to exist; they carried out the old primitive 
doctrine of the apostle, who, when he converted a runaway slave, advised him to 
go back to his master, and advised the master to treat him well. They are aware, 
and they have been aware, that if they promote a sound body of Christian morality, 
and leave that to work itself, it will more effectually modify and ameliorate anything 
that may be harsh or severe in political or domestic institutions, than by attempt- 
ing directly to meddle with them; and therefore they give to Cesar what be- 


310 


longs to Cesar. I take that to be the old sound doctrine of the Methodist Church, 
and that it has always been carried out. And the Southern branch of this Church 
always acted with them, until they had become (and I do not blame them ; it is not 
for me to blame any of the parties in this case) extremely sensitive upon that subject 
from the conduct of certain individuals in other portions of the United States, who 
have undertaken to go beyond this sound doctrine, and interfere with their domestic 
institutions, beyond what reason, good sense,or Christianity would call for or admit. 

Now, what is the reason why the officers of their Church, their travelling ministers 
for instance, are required to emancipate their slaves where it can be done? and what 
is the reason why a bishop in no case is allowed to hold slaves? Not that they want 
to interfere with the domestic institutions of the South. All they want is to render 
their officers acceptable, and acceptable to all men; to be all things to all men, in 
the sense in which St. Paul used that phrase ; to be acceptable, in order to do good. 
That was their object; and they believed, and they now believe, that to carry out 
the great purposes of their Church, it is all-important that those rules should be ob- 
served, without attempting to meddle with the domestic institutions of the South. 
They were willing to appoint Southern ministers to the bishopric, as they always 
have done, but just select those who do not own slaves. Among these Christians 
of primitive habits, where there are ministers in abundance who do not own property 
of that kind, and who own very little property of any kind, where the land they cul- 
tivate is Immanuel’s land, there is no difficulty in selecting proper persons for that 
office, who are free from this objection. 

One great principle—it is a radical principle, and was set forth in the Address of 
the bishops, which was signed by the two Southern bishops, Soule and Andrew—is 
the doctrine of the itinerancy of the bishops. It is looked upon as one of the essen- 
tial doctrines of that Chureh. It will not do to establish local bishops. It will not 
do, they say, to make any exceptions. They have adopted in this case the primitive 
rule of the apostles—to travel, not to abide in one place ; to go abroad, to scatter the 
seeds of the Gospel through every land. Their bishops are to travel, each and all 
of them, over every portion of the dominions and jurisdiction of their Church. But 
when they go into that part of the country where slavery happens to be in bad odour, 
and where they are to make their efforts not only to confirm those already in the 
faith, but convert others to it, any one must see that they become inefficient if they 
are the owners of slaves ; and therefore it becomes necessary to do one of two things : 
either require that the bishops elected shall not be slaveholders, or dispense with the 
rule that they shall be itinerant, and make them local. The latter they could not do 
without abandoning Methodism, because the great founder of Methodism laid that 
down as an essential rule. He adopted the episcopacy of the English Church, but 
it was not a mere local, lazy episcopacy, such as he found there. He wanted an ac- 
tive travelling episcopacy, and to keep them active and efficient he determined to 
introduce this as an indispensable rule of the Church, that they should be itinerant ; 
and they have continued to be so. Here is the great origin of all their doctrines in 
regard to slavery—doctrines in which the Southern branch, as well as the Northern, 
until a comparatively recent period, all concurred, and about which there appears to 
have been before this not the slightest difficulty. And what is this recent difficulty ? 
How did it arise? We first hear of it in the General Conferences of 1840 and 1844. 
It appears that among individual members of this Church in the Northern and Middle 
States, there were some abolitionists. And when we consider the state of society 
in this section of the country for a number of years past, the vast influence which the 
foreign abolitionists have had upon our country, and the attempts which were made 
by the foreign bishops to introduce these doctrines here, meddling with institutions 


311 


with which they had no concern ; meddling with our servants who are in a state of 
slavery, but ina much better condition than their own at home, many of whom are in a 
condition at present which a British minister lately described as formerly applicable 
to a certain portion of their society in early periods of their history—without panta- 
loons,—when, I say, we look at this, and the constant efforts which they had made, 
is it surprising that there should be individual members of this Church who should 
adopt. these doctrines, and who should undertake to flood the conferences with their 
petitions and memorials, as the same class of people undertook to flood the congress 
of the United States? And they actually did for a number of years overwhelm it with 
these worse than useless petitions, backed by an old gentleman in congress of great dis- 
tinction, but whom I have always considered as acting very erroneously on that sub- 
ject. If, when these petitions came in, the conferences had adopted and acted upon 
them, there would have been some ground of complaint. But how was it? Did 
they adopt them? We have a resolution passed by the Church in 1840 upon this 
subject, which, I apprehend, ought, with all prudent men who are disposed to be 
guided by their reason instead of their passions, to have calmed and quieted this 
Church. I read from the First of the Proofs, page 74, a resolution which was passed 
upon a report of the committee upon these petitions :— 


“ Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences in General Confer- 
ence assembled, That under the provisional exception of the general rule of the 
Church on the subject of slavery, the simple holding of slaves, or mere ownership of 
slave property, in States or territories where the laws do not admit of emancipation 
and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal barrier to the 
election or ordination of ministers to the various grades of office known in the ministry 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and cannot therefore be considered as operating 
any forfeiture of right in view of such election and ordination.” 


This was nothing more than the adoption of the ancient and established usages of 
this Church, in defiance of all these petitions which were thus sent in, carrying them 
out, and showing, on the part of this Church, a determination to carry out their 
ancient and established doctrine and rules. Now, I submit, that that is no foundation 
for a secession from this Church. The Southern brethren cannot complain of any 
misconduct on the part of this Church as a Church. On the contrary, their conduct 
was exemplary, and was in perfect harmony with the established usages and practices 
of the Church. 

As to the case of Mr. Harding, who was one of the travelling ministers in the Bal- 
timore Conference, which the counsel on the other side, in the indulgence of a little 
imagination, calls the “‘ Breakwater Conference,” it seems that in that conference 
there is slaveholding territory and free territory. Mr. Harding had not purchased 
slaves, but had acquired them by marriage. Well, two questions arose in that case : 
one was, whether slaves could be emancipated in that State; and the other was, 
whether he was to be considered as voluntarily acquiring this kind of property when 
he obtained it by marriage? I admit that was a pretty nice question, because, 
although the Methodists adopt the American doctrine of free will, yet in the case of 
matrimony, perhaps, there is not always perfect free will. However, it was a very 
delicate and nice question to determine whether it came within the rule of voluntary 
acquisition. Another question arose, and that was, whether in that State manumis- 
sion was allowable? It seems that some gentlemen gave opinions that it was, and 
others thought differently. The conference had to pass on these delicate subjects. 
It was a question which could not often arise. It was a mere isolated case, and one 
which they had to pass upon with the best Jights they could get, and the annual con~ 
ference decided that he ought to be suspended from the ministry until he emancipated 


312 


the slaves, or showed cause for not doing it. If you will read the argument, you 
will see that he had not made any effort to do it; perhaps his wife would have joined 
him im emancipating them. He appeared to be active in retaining the property. 
Therefore, under all the circumstances, as in this conference there was jurisdiction 
over free territory and slave territory, and ministers who held slaves would not be 
acceptable in the free part of it, and as travelling ministers are to travel over the 
entire territory in the conference, they thought best, until that difficulty should be 
removed, that he should be suspended from the ministry. ‘The General Conference, 
on an appeal, seeing no foundation for reversing, confirmed the decision. 

Let us take the next case in connexion with it, that of Bishop Andrew. He, it 
seems, also married a wife, and that wife had slaves. He had acquired by will a 
slave who refused to be free, who refused to go to Liberia. So far from making any 
effort to emancipate, or showing any disposition to do it, he had executed an assign- 
ment in trust to secure the slaves thus acquired to the joint benefit of himself and his 
wife. That case came up before the Conference. What were they todo? Here 
was a bishop, against whom there was no objection originally, but who had become 
unacceptable to a considerable portion of Methodists in some parts of the territory ; 
and according to a radical and fundamental doctrine of that Church, he was to travel 
through all that territory. That must be admitted to be a very nice question. Sup- 
pose they were wrong in their decision upon the case—let us suppose, upon the whole 
case, which would bring even a judicial mind, who happened to be a member of that 
Church, to a pause, that they had come to an erroneous decision, and had committed 
an error in this one particular case, is that to break up the Church? Does that war- 
rant a secession? Is that a misconduct which would entitle them to be treated in the 
light of seceders? I apprehend not. 

I will refer the Court, on this subject, to the case of Miller vs. Gable, 2 Denio’s 
Reports, 492. Judge Gardiner observes, in going over this subject, in regard to doc- 
trines—and it will throw light on the subject of the government and discipline—that 
in order to constitute a departure from the trust, with regard to doctrines, there must 
be a settled deviation from some substantial doctrine of the Church. You will find 
the same position in 2 Bligh’s Reports, 529. This was the case of an Associate 
Congregation of Perth. 

It establishes two important principles :— 

Firstly. ‘‘ Where a difference of doctrines prevails, the Court will decide in favour 
of the party which adheres to the ancient doctrines of the Church. 

Secondly. ‘‘That when there is a difference in regard to government, the Court 
will decide im favour of those who adhere to the old government. But the question 


of doctrine furnishes the primary rule—an adherence to the ancient established 
doctrines of the Church is indispensable to constitute Church membership.” 


This case was carried up to the Court of Appeals—the Parliament of Great 
Britain—and it was there decided that there had been a deviation in some respects 
from their doctrines, but in no very essential point. It was on the subject of the 
administration of an oath. 

But it must be in some substantial, essential point, where there is a departure, in 
order to warrant a court in treating them as seceders from the Church. If there had 
been in this-case a determination to depart from some important radical portion of 
the Discipline, which is considered essential, there would have been ground for a seces- 
sion ; but to say that in this Church, because, in two particular instances, in very nice 
cases, they had given a construction which the gentlemen on the other side say was 
not correct, but where it is manifest they decided according to their best judgments 
—to say that in this Church a decision in such cases, standing out of any direct rule, 


313 


and where a rule was to be applied without any precedents to guide them, was a mis- 
conduct which would warrant a dissolution of the union of the Church, break it up, 
and entitle those who did thus dissolve it, and break it wp, to be considered as the 
true Church, and to carry property along with them, is, I apprehend, going too far. 
T will call the attention of the Court to the view which this Church takes of this 
subject of union in their Discipline, chap. 1, sec. 18 :— 


‘“‘Let us be deeply sensible (from what we have known) of the evil of a division in 
principle, spirit, or practice, and the dreadful consequences to ourselves and others. 
If we are united, what can stand before us? If we divide, we shall destroy ourselves, 
the work of God, and the souls of our people.” 


They here inculcate with great stress the importance of union and the necessity of 
enforcing and preserving it. The principles they advance are important and highly 
conservative. It would be well for all good citizens ‘to adopt those principles, to guide 
them in their allegiance and their duty towards the government of the country under 
which they live, and from which they have received all that they are and all that they 
ought to be. Deeply imbued with those principles, while anxious to assert their 
rights, they would be equally mindful of their duties. Then follows a variety of re- 
gulations to preserve the union of the Church. 

Well, when we find a rule of law upon this subject, that in order to constitute a 
right to separate or secede lawfully, there must be in the opposite party a settled 
violation of or departure from some essential and important rule of action in the gov- 
emment or discipline, of course the same law will apply more strongly to a similar 
departure in a matter of faith and doctrine, because it is more important in an eccle- 
siastical body that its faith should be observed than its government or discipline. 
The religious faith of the Church is the great object in view in establishing the 
Church. You will always look and inquire in considering who are the adherents to 
any institution, what is the object of that body ? for what is it created ’—the rules, 
government, and discipline, are merely subordinate. ‘They are merely instrumental 
im carrying out the great purpose which is here—the promotion and propagation of 
religious faith. But a departure from the religious faith in a matter of very little 
importance, as we have seen, is no foundation for a separation. Can, then, a mistake 
ina decision in a doubtful, difficult case, a new case, one which does not come 
directly under any fixed, settled principle, but to which principles are brought to 
apply inferentially and impliedly, warrant the members in breaking up and destroying 
the society? I submit that it cannot, and more especially, too, when you see that this 
Church is considered as a unit ; that it is a regularly organized body, and its union in all 
its branches, in all its entirety, is considered essential for the promotion of morality, 
and the preservation of the souls of its members. Yet, such are the grounds which 
are now relied upon on the other side to legalize the separation of this Church. 

I now proceed to consider the objections which are taken to the manner in which 
this trial of the bishop was had. We are told that Bishop Andrew did not receive a 
regular trial, that he was not regularly summoned, and that he was not condemned ac- 
cording to any fixed and settled rule of Jaw. Well, upon the subject of the trial and 
notice, I apprehend he has had all the trial which could be required in an institution 
of this kind. They have no regular formal proceedings by summons, no pleading, 
and no jury trial. It is sufficient if the man was heard, and had an opportunity for 
defending himself, and presenting his case fully. Bishop Andrew had this. He 
wrote a letter in which he stated the whole case; and no further trial, or notice, or 
evidence could be required, because they took the case precisely as he had stated it 
in that letter, and thus adopted and acted upon it. He had every opportunity of 
presenting every reason and every consideration that could occur to him, as proper 


314 


to be heard in his case, either to justify, excuse, or mitigate. What more trial would 
you have? It will be borne in mind, too, that in this Church the bishop is amen- 
able to this Conference. He may be dismissed or suspended for ‘‘improper conduct.” 
That is the language of the Discipline. "What is meant by ‘improper conduct?” 
Does it mean a crime, according to the law of the land? Does it mean any positive and 
express violation of some positive rule of the Methodist Discipline? I apprehend not. 
On p. 16 of the first volume of Proofs, is the following extract from the Discipline :-— 


“To whom is the bishop amenable for his conduct ? 
“To the General Conference, who have power to expel him for improper conduct, 
if they see it necessary.” 


‘« Improper conduct,” I apprehend, is not confined to some violation of law or some 
settled rule of Discipline. A bishop may commit acts of impropriety which cannot 
be brought under any fixed rule-of law. I might refer your Honours to the injunc- 
tion upon bishops to be found in Timothy, with which, no doubt, you are perfectly 
familiar, and which you will find, goes much further than any requirement of law, in 
reference to his behaviour and deportment. Suppose any bishop, where it is allow- 
able, should set up a hotel, or allow gaming in a country where it is not condemned 
by law. Perhaps you would find nothing specified in the rules of the Discipline, 
and nothing in the law of the land about it, but every one would say it was improper 
for a bishop to act in that way, and clearly under the rule of Discipline the Confer- 
ence might condemn and expel him for such improper conduct. There are a hundred, 
a thousand things, which, according to the usages of the Churches, it would be im- 
proper for a minister to do, and yet which would violate no law, and be done with 
perfect propriety by persons who were not in that venerable position in the Church 
and society at large, a position calling for a most guarded circumspection of con- 
duct. Now I presume that this rule was intended to meet that class of cases, to 
confer full power upon the Church to reach all such cases which could not be re- 
duced to any fixed, settled rule of law. 

Now, if a bishop acquires slaves after he becomes a bishop, when, by the ancient 
usages of the Church, he would not have been elected to that office if he had then 
held them, for reasons which I have already assigned, and which rules have been 
in that Church always deemed imperative, and he omits to manumit them, or if he 
should persist to act as bishop while he holds them, and is yet in a condition to 
manumit them, his conduct would be “improper” according to the rules of the 
Discipline of that Church. It would be improper, because it would tend to destroy 
his efficiency as an itinerant bishop; and in that point of view, this Conference 
would have a perfect right to inflict the censure prescribed in the Discipline upon 
him. But they did not do it. They avoided it. They took the mildest measure 
that could be taken in the case. They were determined to support their Discipline 
as far as they could; to have an acceptable bishopric, and an itinerant bishopric, 
and at the same time relieve Bishop Andrew from any imputation, except so far as it 
was indispensably necessary to carry out these points. Instead, therefore, of expel- 
ling or suspending him, instead of passing an act of a punitive character, they simply 
advised (for it is clearly an advisory proceeding) that he should “ desist’ from 
acting. At the same,time, on account of the delicacy of his situation, they left him 
all the privileges and advantages of a bishop. Well, say the gentlemen on the other 
side, it is placing him in a very awkward predicament to act after such an advisory 
letter or request as this. Well, that could not be helped. It was placing him in 
that position unquestionably, but at the same time it was treating him with as much 
delicacy as the case could admit of. In acase like this, under all these cireum- 
stances, when they all felt, deeply felt, the necessity of preserving their ancient 


315 


landmarks, of preserving the episcopacy, and at the same time preserving its itiner- 
ancy, and of connecting the two with the usefulness and efficiency of their bishops, 
they took that course which in their opinion was most advisable; and the question 
for you now to determine is, (for the other side mainly rest on that ground—there 
they plant themselves,) Was that a sufficient foundation for this Southern branch of 
the Church to secede—to leave them? and are they entitled as seceders to carry 
with them the property of the Church, on the ground of a radical, substantial depar- 
ture from the discipline of the Church by the body they leave behind? I submit 
to the Court that no such charge can be legitimately brought against us. They 
cannot rest on that foundation for a claim to this property. I admit in all these 
ecclesiastical institutions, and it must be admitted on all hands, and I have no doubt 
the Southern Church will admit, the importance of preserving the discipline. Faith 
and doctrines are paramount, but at the same time, discipline is important, because 
it is enjoined upon them (to be Scriptural) to do all things in order, and so to do 
them, they must have rules of action, and they must comply with them. 

We are not left here to draw legal inferences from the doctrines or government of 
the Church as to the consequences of this separation upon the property. I have con- 
sidered this subject so far, in its bearings upon the property, upon the supposition 
there was not any agreement about it. Has there been in this case, such a separa- 
tion by agreement to separate as would entitle them to a part of the property? and 
if not, has there been such misconduct, on the part of the old Church, as to warrant 
them in-separating, and still entitle them to hold the property? That is the view I 
have taken of it; and in so treating it, I have laid out of view any agreement about 
the property. But if there is an agreement between the parties respecting the pro- 
perty itself, it must govern, supposing they have any right to agree about it one way 
or the other. They say the General Conference had a right to make an agreement 
with them, by which they should separate from the Church. Carry that out ; as- 
sume they had the right. We say, that even if there was an agreement about 
the property, that agreement was, that they should detach themselves from the main 
body of the Church, and leave that behind; and, therefore, they could not carry the 
property with them upon principles of law. In the next place, we contend that 
there is, in the absence of an agreement, no such misconduct on the part of this 
Church as would entitle them to claim any portion of the property. But I come 
now to this important point, that there was in this case an express agreement about 
the property ; and that must settle the question. You can deduce no inferences, you 
can draw no conclusions, you can raise no implications, when you have an express 
agreement. ‘That must stand by itself, and they must either stand or fall by it. 
Let us see what that agreement was. It is to be found in the First Proofs, p. 129 :— 


“4, That whenever the annual conferences, by a vote of three-fourths of all their 
members voting on the third resolution, shall have concurred in the recommendation 
to alter the sixth restrictive article, the agents at New-York and Cincinnati shall, 
and they are hereby authorized and directed to deliver over to any authorized agent 
or appointee of the Church, South, should one be organized, all notes and book ac- 
counts against the ministers, Church members, or citizens within its boundaries, with 
authority to collect the same for the sole use of the Southern Church, and that 
said agents also convey to the aforesaid agent or appointee of the South all the 
real estate, and assign to him all the property, including presses, stock, and all 
right and interest connected with the printing establishments at Charleston, Rich- 
mond, and Nashville, which now belong to the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

“5. ‘That when the annual conferences shall have approved the aforesaid change 
in the sixth restrictive article, there shall be transferred to the above agent of the 
Southern Church so much of the capital and product of the Methodist Book Con- 
cern as will, with the notes, book accounts, presses, &c., mentioned in the last reso- 


316 


lution, bear the same proportion to the whole property of said Concern that the 
travelling preachers in the Southern Church shall bear to all the travelling ministers 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church; the division to be made on the basis of the 
number of travelling preachers in the forthcoming minutes. 

“6. That the above transfer shall be in the form of annual payments of $25,000 
per annum, and specifically in stock of the Book Concern, and in Southern notes and 
accounts due the establishment, and accruing after the first transfer mentioned above ; 
and until the payments are made, the Southern Church shall share in all the net pro- 
fits of the Book Concern, in the proportion that the amount due them or in arrears 
bears to all the property of the Concern.” 


I think no man who will read this case over candidly and impartially, can hesitate 
to say, that this General Conference acted upon the idea, that before this branch, 
who were thus to separate and form a new organization in the South, could take 
any portion of this property, which was devoted to this charitable use in the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, the annual conferences should concur. ‘The counsel on the 
other side, tell us, that that is not the true construction ; that it was intended that 
they should have the right absolutely ; and that all that was required by this agree- 
ment—all that was rendered contingent was, that it should not be transferred until 
the annual conferences thus concurred. It appears to me, that that would be per- 
fectly peurile. What! Give them the right without this concurrence of the annual 
conferences, and yet tell them it should not be transferred until the annual confer- 
ences did concur! Give them the right, but not let them take the property? 
If they intended they should have the right absolutely, clearly they would allow 
the property to be transferred at once. If they intended, before any transfer 
of this property should be made, that the annual conferences should concur, 
they clearly intended no right until that concurrence should be obtained. I 
think that it is too clear to dispute about. A distinction like that, if it was carried 
out, would be perfectly refined and peurile, and totally devoid of that common-sense 
which guides this Methodist Episcopal Church in their conduct. They manifestly 
meant, that the annual conferences should concur before any portion of this property 
should be divided. ‘They said to the delegates from the South: “If you find it 
necessary, when you come to meet in your annual conferences, that you should sepa- 
rate, we will agree that you shall; but we cannot agree—and you must take this as 
connected with your action upon this subject in your annual conferences—we cannot 
agree that any portion of this property shall pass from us as composing the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, until the annual conferences concur.”’ And I think there was 
some reason and sound sense in this. Suppose that this institution, as the managers 
of this charity, were so connected and identified with it and with the beneficiaries as 
to entitle them to dispose of this property in this way in an emergency of that kind, 
ought it to be done until the concurrence of all the managers is obtained? "Were 
the General Conference the exclusive managers? Certainly not; the annual con- 
ferences participated in the management of it as much, and perhaps more efficiently 
than the General Conference ; and for that reason, when they undertook to adjust 
this matter of property in their capacity of managers, without the sanction of a court 
of equity, with great propriety they required that their concurrence should be ob- 
tained before any portion of this property should be taken. 

Well, now, who is to lay this matter before the annual conferences? It is not re- 
quired by the General Conference that it be done by any person concerned. The 
other party could see and undertake to bring it before them, as well as ourselves. If 
they, the annual conferences, act upon it and concur, when the subject is brought be- 
fore them, there is an end of the question. Havethey concurred? That is not pre- 
tended. They do not set that up on the other side. The counsel on the other side 


317 


says that the annual conferences have not refused; that there was a mistake in the 
voting ; that the proposition presented to them was so general and broad, as not to 
reach the case properly ; that the question was put to them, whether there should be an 
absolute and unqualified repeal of the sixth restrictive article ; and that it should have 
been put, whether it should be altered so far as to allow the Church, South, to take 
this ratable proportion of the property. I admit this is a fair and reasonable inter- 
pretation of that agreement. The proposition as presented is drawn in general 
terms, but it is fair to restrict and modify it according to the subject matter, and it 
would have been proper to have put it in that shape; and it is very probable that 
some of these conferences did not concur in it, on account of the generality of the 
proposition. What then ought to be done in a case like that? Why, wait until the 
subject shall be laid before the annual conferences anew, until they shall have passed 
upon it in its new shape ; and when they have passed upon it fairly and fully—when 
it is presented in a modified form, which will bring up the entire question, fairly and 
distinctly, for their consideration—then it will be time to pass on the final subject, in 
the disposition of this property. And all they had to do at the South was to wait a 
reasonable time until this matter could be fairly disposed of. They have not thought 
proper, however, to do this. What is the consequence? ‘The consent of the annual 
conferences, necessary to enable them to take any portion of this property according 
to the agreement between the parties, has not been obtained. This agreement, 
stating the terms on which they shall take this property, necessarily involves the in- 
terpretation, that without the consent of the annual conferences they should not take 
it, and were not entitled to it. There has not been that consent. Then how are 
they entitled to it? Are they entitled to it independently of this agreement? 
Then they can violate the agreement; they are not bound by it; they can set up 
something in opposition to it, when it is made the plain rule of action for the parties 
in this particular case. All must abide by the agreement in all its parts. It does 
appear to me that this view is decisive upon this question. Why, suppose that in 
the case of a township incorporated, having property, the legislature should pass an 
act authorizing a portion of the town to be set apart to form a new one, and they 
should make provision, that in case certain bodies in that township should concur, a 
portion of the property should be given to the new town, could they take it without 
such concurrence? [think not. In the absence of such a provision, as separatists, 
though with the concurrence of all concerned, they would not be entitled to it at all. 
With such a provision, there must be a compliance with it. That is the case here. 
I have shown that this Southern Church are separatists ; that they leave the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church in all its identity and entirety behind them; that they set up 
a new Church, and in that capacity are not entitled to the property in question. 
They set up that agreement in’their favour. But it has not been performed ; its 
terms have not been fulfilled. They did not wait until the fulfilment of it could be 
obtained. They thought proper to go and carry out their new organization and es- 
tablish a new Church, and then claim this property. The consequence is, they are 
not entitled to it. In the absence of any agreement they would not be entitled to it. 
The terms of the agreement have not been fulfilled, and they are not entitled under 
the agreement. In any point of view, they are not legally entitled to any portion of 
this property. 
The Court adjourned until Wednesday. 


318 


EIGHTH DAY.—Wepnespay, May 28, 1851. 


Mr, Woop,—I shall not detain your Honours a long while with this case, this 
morning. In fact, if I had not been so much exhausted yesterday, I should have 
claimed the indulgence of the Court for a short time, and then have finished. This 
case, however, is too important to be slightly passed over ; important in its interests, 
in the character of its interests and parties, and in its connexion with national con- 
cerns ; for, I think, in the present crisis of our country, it has a most intimate 
connexion with public affairs. 

The proposition to which I now wish to call the attention of the Court is, that the 
Church (in reference to its property I now speak) had no power to make such a divi- 
sion as is contended for on the other side, and part with the property. I do not put 
this now mainly upon the idea that this General Conference is a delegated body. I 
am aware of the distinction between a delegated sovereignty and a delegated agency, 
in a matter of business. In the latter case, the agent continues subject to the con- 
trol of the principal ; but in the case of a delegated sovereign power, the sovereignty 
controls the constituency. That is a distinction, and is one which is too often lost sight 
of even in our halls of legislation. I shall proceed to state, however, the grounds 
of objection, on which I rely, to any attempt on the part of this General Conference, 
or the General Conference in connexion with the annual conferences, in themselves, 
to undertake to divide this Church, and divide the property along with it ; for it is 
particularly in connexion with the property we are now to consider the case. 

I must here draw the attention of the Court to a distinction which does not appear 
to have been adverted to; and that is, that these funds are not beneficially, and even 
in the point of view in which an interest is taken in a public charity, the funds of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. That Church has a beneficial equitable control over 
them as managers of the charity ; but that beneficial equitable control is for the be- 
nefit of the classes of persons who are designated as the objects of the charitable use. 
They are, as has often been repeated, the superannuated and supernumerary minis- 
ters, their wives, widows, and children. Now the Methodist Episcopal Church, if 
they owned the property, or had the equitable beneficial interest in it in themselves, 
might exercise an influence over that property, which would be more extensive than 
they could over property of which they had the mere management. But it would 
not be such a vested interest in them if they held it in that sort of politic capacity, 
if I may call it so, in which charitable uses are generally held, and in reference to 
which ministers of the Church, for the time being, take simply the mere usufruct ; even 
then they could not alienate it. But the books draw a distinction as to the powers of 
beneficiaries in a charitable use even of that description, and the case of a religious 
corporation or a religious institution which has simply a management of a charity. I 
will refer the Court to a case upon this subject—that of the Attorney-General vs. 
Wilson, 18 Vesey, 519; also to be found in Shelford on Mortmain, 701, 702. 


The Attorney-General, vs. Wilson. 
[Rolls.—1812. April 20.] 


Leases of charity estates for twenty-one years, the lessors being not mere trustees, but having 
also a beneficial interest, set aside as breaches of trust by undervalue. 


‘The information, stating the foundation of the free school of Pocklington in the 
fifth year of King Edward VI., and indentures in the first year of Queen Mary, giving 
lands to the master and usher, and their successors forever, to hold in trust for the 
maintenance of the school, complained of several leases of the charity estates, for 
twenty-one years, at very low rents, viz. :—The 13th of August, 1800, at the annual 
rent of £3, the value to be let being £92 per annum ; the 3d of December, 1800, rent 


319 


£2 13s. 4d., annual value £141; 12th December, 1800, rent £1 2s. 6d., value £35; 
26th November, 1804, rent £1 13s. 4d., value £26; and 23d November, 1805, rent 
£5, rau £132. On the death of the late master, in 1807, the relator was ap- 
pointed. 

“‘ The information, charging that the whole of the rents, amounting to no more than 
£63 12s. 6d., is very inadequate to the support of the school, and that the granting 
such leases was a breach of trust, prayed that the defendants may be decreed to de- 
liver them up to be cancelled, and to account for the full value since the death of 
the late master ; and a reference for a scheme for letting the estate agreeably to the 
intention of the founder. 


Sir Samuel Romely and Mr. Bell, in support of the information: Mr. Hart and 
Mr. Shadwell for the defendants. 


“The Master or THe Rotts, [Sir Wittiam Grant,] (preventing the reply,) 
made the decree setting aside the leases, referring to his judgment in the Attorney- 
General vs. Magwood, and observing that having then had much occasion to consider 
this subject, he found several cases in Duke, Vernon, and modern reports, particularly 
the Attorney-General vs. Gower; that the short duration of the term was immaterial, 
and the only distinction of this from the late case was, that in those the lessors were 
mere trustees, and in this instance they had also a beneficial interest ; but such 
leases are not to be encouraged on account of the inconvenience both ways, the 
trustees not doing their duty, and the lessees getting the land at a low rent.” 


In that case, although they had a beneficial interest, yet the grant, or rather the 
lease, was so unreasonable that the court of equity set it aside ; but at the same time 
they recognised a distinction between cases where the managers of the charity have 
a beneficial interest, and where they have merely the management for the benefit of 
others who are the beneficiaries. Now, in this case, the Methodist Episcopal Church 
are not the beneficiaries, they are the managers of this charity for the sake of others, 
who are, itis true, in some sort connected with the Church, and who take the usufruct 
in some measure in ease of the Church, but they are nevertheless distinct in point of 
interest. I have already stated that there is a connexion between the officers of the 
Church, when the property is given for their benefit, and the Church itself; and I showed 
you a case from the first Pennsylvania Reports, where the disposition was considered 
in ease of the Church. But still there is a distinction. This Church, although this 
property is given in ease of it, would have no right to divert it to any other portion 
of the Church, or apply it to any other interest in the Church, or at least so much 
of it as may be required to fulfil the end designed to supply the beneficiaries. It 
must to that extent go according to the designation of the charity, for the benefit of 
those who are marked out as the objects of the charity. I believe I have already 
pointed out the distinction between the identity of the Church and the beneficiaries 
of this charity, as connected with the Church and the Methodist Episcopal faith. I 
have shown you that you could not apply this charity to objects which were not con- 
nected with this Church itself, in its organization, in its discipline, in its identity. 
That connexion must be observed ; and it will not do to say that the parties, or any 
persons who have the management of it, have a right to apply it to other individuals 
who may be ministers of some Methodist Episcopal Church, or who may answer the 
description of wives, widows, or children of some ministers of some other Methodist 
Church, happening to be of the same faith. They must, therefore, be entirely con- 
nected, and, as I before observed, in addition, that organism must be preserved, and 
it must be carried out by the Court. 

Now, the annual conferences in this case must concur with the General Con- 
ference in reference to the management and disposition of this charity, when any dis- 
position can be made, because, as I before remarked, they are concerned just as 
much, in their respective spheres, in the general disposition of the proceeds of this 


320 


charity as the General Conference itself. But if all of them concurred, the power is 
not complete to undertake to divide these funds; and before I proceed to point out 
my objections, I will meet the cases advanced on the other side for the purpose 
of overturning the principle I state. We are referred to the Canada Conference. 
You will recollect, however, the Canada Conference was no part of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. It was simply an appendage, and it has been so treated through- 
out, and a connexion of a temporary character. I will call the attention of the Court 
to one or two items upon this subject. In 1824 an attempt was made to divide this 
from the Church, and in their memorial they point out the nature of this connexion :— 


“ Sensible as we are of the advantages derived from the connexion with which you 
have kindly favoured us, we are nevertheless constrained by the circumstances in 
which we find ourselves placed to request a separation.” 


You there find that the Canada Conference is treated as being no integral part of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, but connected with it simply by a temporary union, 
or a temporary alliance, if I may so call it. Well, now, in respect to all that class 
of cases a distinction has been drawn. If your Honours will advert to the case of 
Miller vs. Gable, 2 Denio’s Reports, you will find great stress was laid upon the fact 
that that particular Church formed no part, no integral part, of the German Reformed 
Church, but that it was connected with it in the nature of a temporary alliance. 
That was precisely the case in the Presbyterian Church controversy, in regard to the 
Churches in the Western Reserve. It was there held and finally carried out in the 
decisions in Pennsylvania, that it was not a constituent branch of the Church, but a 
temporary alliance. : 

I apprehend, therefore, that that Canada case has no bearing upon the subject. 
Besides, no part of the property, finally, was given to the Canada Conference. And 
when youcome to look at the votes upon that subject, you will find that the Southern 
conferences, almost to a man, voted against their taking any portion of this property. 
You will find that fact stated in page 47, First of the Proofs. It is certainly true 
that the Church finally did make some allowance, and perhaps the remark made by 
the counsel on the other side was correct, that if they were not entitled to anything 
the General Conference was wrong in giving them such privileges as they did. The 
answer to all that is, that it does not alter the principle. They can draw nothing 
from that case to support them in regard to the power of this Methodist Episcopal 
Church to cut itself in twain, and then, as managers of this charity, to undertake to 
divide the funds in this way. 

The counsel who is to close the argument on the other side, has referred to a case 
in 1 Peters, 542, as having some analogy to this subject. He refers to the Consti- 
tution of the United States, which gives to the federal government the power of 
regulating their territories, and then he says, it is claimed by the Supreme Court of 
the United States, in this case in 1 Peters, that they were authorized to establish 
over the territory acquired by treaty a territorial government, in virtue of that power 
which is contained in the Constitution. That is all certainly true. Such a decision 
was made, and I believe no sound jurist will ever attempt to impeach its correct- 
ness. They had the power. It is in the very nature of the power granted. When 
you look at the subject of the grant, which had relation to the exercise of a sovereign 
power, it was in the very nature of things that that power should be exercised by 
creating a subordinate delegated sovereignty. But what bearing has it upon the 
present case? If this Methodist Episcopal Church, in the extension of her territory, 
had created and set up a new annual conference under their control and jurisdiction, 
there would have been some analogy. Then it would have been simply the creation 


321 


of a subordinate government under their control, and it would have preserved the 
unity and identity of the entire Church. But that is a very different affair from a 
division of the Methodist Episcopal Church, creating a new jurisdiction altogether 
and entirely independent of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Now, suppose, in 
order to illustrate this case, that under this power to regulate territories, the government 
of the United States should undertake to separate this territory, to declare it inde- 
pendent, and to set up an entirely new and independent government free from their 
control; if they were to do that, there would be some analogy. But, I apprehend, 
Chief Justice Marshall never would have undertaken to sanction such a proceeding, 
on the ground that the Constitution in that passage referred to authorized such a 
course to be taken. ‘That would present a case somewhat analogous to this, and I 
will venture to say, such a case never will occur. If ever this country should be 
divided, if ever a portion of it should be separated from the rest, and it should finally, 
in the course of events, come to be fully established, it must rest on some power, 
some mode of proceeding, out of the Constitution and not there provided for; and 
if ever this Methodist Episcopal Church is divided, as it has been in fact divided, 
and if ever they take the property in consequence of that division, without a positive 
agreement between the parties on the subject, it must be by force of some principle 
which you cannot find in any provision in the government and discipline of the 
Church. It does not provide for any such case. 

Now, I submit that there can be no such power; and the only way that I can see 
in which an agreement to divide this property, after dividing the Church, can be car- 
ried out by this Court, would be upon the principle of compromise ; and if these par- 
ties had fairly and without precipitation gone on and carried out that compromise— 
if the opposite party had gone regularly on under the agreement, and waited until 
the concurrence of the annual conferences had been obtained, pursuant to the terms 
of that compromise, and had made the arrangement—then I can see that this Court 
could have carried it out; but eventhen it would have required the sanction of this 
Court to give it effect. Upon this subject I refer to Shelford on Mortmain, 608, 
referring to the case of the Attorney-General vs. The Merchant Tailors’ School, 
7 Vesey, 233, and Andrew vs. Trinity Hall, 9 Vesey, 535. 


“ Trinity Hall in Cambridge, devisee in remainder after estates for lives, in trust, 
for founding four new scholarships, for making additional buildings to that college, 
and for founding four new fellowships, were held not to have accepted the devise, by 
acts done merely for the preservation of the fund ; and upon their refusal to accept it, 
after the death of the tenant for life, the Court directed the master to receive a pro- 
posal in order to have it considered whether it could be executed cy-prés; and the 
testator having expressed in his will, that no person should be qualified for the 
scholarships and fellowships he intended to found, unless they should have been edu- 
cated in Merchant Tailors’ School, the master was particularly directed to receive a 
proposal on the part of that school, for the establishment of a charity within the terms 
of the testator’s will. A compromise afterwards taking place to apply part of the 
fund to an establishment at S¢. John’s College, in Oxford, with which coilege the 
Merchant Tailors’ Company are connected, and to give the rest to the next of kin, it 
was, with the consent of the attorney-general, established by decree. And the next 
of kin, after this compromise, having filed a bill against Trinity Hall, for an account, 
the bill was dismissed, the Court holding the next of kin bound by the compromise.” 


And you will find also in the case of Black vs. Ligan, Harper’s South Carolina 
Reports, 215, a case of this character and description, in which Chancellor De Saus- 
sure advised and recommended a compromise, and even went the length of delaying 
the decision of the Court to give the parties an opportunity of carrying it out. But 
in all these cases it must be done under the sanction of the Court. In the case of an 


21 


322 


ordinary alienation of property held for charitable uses, the sanction of the Court was 
required, and for this plain reason: that parties beneficially interested have not such 
an interest as will enable them to alienate it, and in all cases if a man purchases and 
takes a lease from the trustees of the charity which is improvident and unreason- 
able, the Court of Equity will set it aside, holding that a party taking a lease of such 
property or land, takes it sub modo, and it ought to be set aside if the chancellor, 
who represents the interests of the beneficiaries of the charity, should think that the 
lease is improvident and unreasonable. I refer the Court upon this subject to Shel- 
ford, 658 and 698. 

The Court will find a striking case in the Attorney-General vs. Warren, which is 
to be found in 2 Swanson, 291 ; a case of a charity lease which required the sanction 
of the Court. I will refer you also to Shelford on Mortmain, 698. If in the case 
of an ordinary alienation of property which is held for charitable purposes, the trus- 
tees and parties having the management are bound to a provident alienation, if that 
alienation is considered under the control and direction of the Court, and if an aliena- 
tion without any fraud, without any mistake, can be set aside merely because it is 
unreasonable or improvident, it shows how completely the disposition of property 
which is set apart for charity and other public uses, is placed under the direction and 
control of a court of equity; and the reason to which I have adverted shows the pro- 
priety of it. There are no beneficiaries to look after this charity—none that have a 
vested interest in it even in equity. If this is the case in ordinary alienations of pro- 
perty held for such uses, how much more strongly must it be the case when you come 
to a subject like this, which stands out of all ordinary rules of proceedings, which is 
not provided for by the government and discipline. I mean the case of a division of 
the Church, and a division taking place on account of disputes and difficulties arising 
in the Church. In order to sanction such a division,—I mean when you carry it into 
the property, and more especially when you carry it to the case of property apper- 
taining to a charity where that Church have simply the management of the charity,— 
how much more important is it that every disposition of that kind should be made un- 
der the sanction and under the control of a court of equity, whose office peculiarly 
is required to protect this kind of charity. 

Now I will venture to say, that if a little more time, and a little more patience, 
had been exercised in this case, that compromise would have been fully carried out. 
It is strange that in these religious cases, when the parties once get a little heated, 
they seem to be less disposed to exercise that patience and forbearance than even in 
ordinary cases of controversy between private individuals. The same hot haste 
occurred in that division in the Society of Friends to which I have frequently alluded ; 
and Chief Justice Ewing, in his decision, at page 58, remarks, in substance, that if 
either party had not fallen off from the ancient principles of the Church—patience, 
forbearance, brotherly kindness, and charity—the meek and mild spirit which has 
been believed to characterize and adorn the genuine Friend would, under the bless- 
ings of Providence, have wrought out a perfect reconciliation. 

I really believe, that if the members of this Church had acted with a little more 
caution, a little more forbearance, a little more of that charity which Saint Paul has 
so beautifully described, and which, I believe, this society have generally striven to 
act up to—if they had carried that out in this controversy, I think I may venture to say, 
that although they might not have united again, if the division had been consummated, 
there would have been an arrangement not only as to the ecclesiastical separation, 
but as to this property, which would have restored at least between them brotherly 
kindness, and perhaps more of the unity of spirit than might be expected, considering 
the condition of our public affairs, if they had actually continued together. But they 

21* 


323 


did not take this course. Any man who will read that Plan of Separation, must see 
that it contemplated a full and fair consideration of this subject in the respective 
annual conferences of the South, and that upon such consideration, before any divi- 
sion was actually to take place, they were to be brought to the conclusion that that 
separation was necessary—the strongest language which could have been used upon 
that subject. The deliberations and decisions of those conferences would have 
required time, and all great questions of this kind ought to receive time for their 
settlement and adjustment. That would have given the General Conference, North, 
and the leading men in that Church, an opportunity of going before the other annual 
conferences, and presenting the matter of changing the sixth article in its true light, 
and modifying, on sober second thought, the general nature of the proposition, so as 
to present it in a more definite form; and no doubt the consent would have been 
obtained. All the members of this Church, with whom I have had any consultation 
upon this subject, have been satisfied that in that way it would have been effected. But 
the gentlemen of the South, instead of taking that course, issued that address at the 
very time that the General Conference passed the resolutions—an address which was 
manifestly, instead of leaving the subject to the annual conferences, inviting and 
urging them, though in form submitting it to them, to make a division of the Church, 
instead of going through the process of submitting it to these conferences and getting 
their decision. All that was done was to advise them to appoint delegates to meet 
at Louisville, to form a Convention; and the delegates forming that Convention car- 
ried out the division without any consultation and decision upon the necessity of the 
case by the various annual conferences in the South. This led to the difficulty, and 
to the bringing of this suit. And they did bring this suit, and no further efforts at 
adjustment were made, because, from the moment they took this course, the leading 
members that were left behind in the Methodist Episcopal Church, knew that it was 
perfectly vain to attempt to effect the concurrence of the annual conferences with 
this suit pending over their heads. And I think I may venture to say, that if this 
suit was now out of the way—but I hold no gentleman’s proxy in giving this opinion 
—and a disposition manifested on the other side to meet in the true spirit of compro- 
mise, this whole matter would be settled before eighteen months should pass over. 
But while I make these remarks, I am perfectly aware, that there is some excuse 
for these Southern gentlemen—an excuse which ought to be considered by the 
Church that I represent. That unfortunate question of abolitionism—which has been, 
for the last fifteen or twenty years in this country, Pandora’s box, to let out every 
evil—has wrought them up to a pitch of excitement which forms, if not a justifica- 
tion, at least some excuse for the precipitancy with which they have acted ; and there- 
fore allowances ought to be made on both sides of this question, and no doubt in the 
spirit of concord and conciliation they will be made. When I make these remarks 
on the subject of abolitionism, I do not mean any censure particularly of any persons 
who have suffered themselves to be carried away by that spirit. I know very good 
men, and pious men, have suffered themselves to engage in it ; and this most diffi- 
cult subject to deal with in the world—this spirit of wild enthusiasm which sometimes 
takes possession of a man’s mind—is a subject which is not perfectly understood as 
yet. It will require a new chapter in the science of mental philosophy fully to 
develop it. A man sets out with the best philanthropic motives in the world to 
carry out some great principle of benevolence. He may not be accustomed to take 
very enlarged views of things; hence he suffers that one idea to take full possession 
of his mind. He goes on, filled with benevolence and good feeling towards all the 
world ; but he finally comes to meet with opposition, and that opposition only stimu- 
Jates him the more, excites a feeling utterly polemical, and altogether different from 


324 


that benevolent motive by which he was originally actuated ; and what is more ex- 
traordinary, he becomes the victim of the grossest delusion, imagines himself entirely 
free of all animosity, and actuated still by his original good feeling. I say that these 
enthusiasts act upon principles of mere individualism. ‘They do not look upon sub- 
jects on a large scale. A man takes it into his head that a slave would be better off 
to be free, and therefore he makes every effort to free him. That does very well in 
a mere isolated, individual case. But when you take a slave population, composing 
the entire labouring population of a country, and undertake to free them, you are 
doing something more than engaging in a mere subject of individual philanthropy. 
You are creating a new political power, especially in a country imbued as ours is 
with the principle of universal suffrage, and a power which may be the source of 
tremendous evil. There is no case in history in which the whole labouring popu- 
lation of a country, being in a state of slavery, have been suddenly freed, except by 
our British brethren, who have urged us to that course—a course by which they have 
prostrated completely their West India colonies. This matter of freeing the masses 
in a state of slavery has been, heretofore, in the history of the world, a work of time. 
It has taken that course which Lord Bacon tells us is the course of nature. All 
great reforms require time—long time—to work them out without producing more 
evil than good. 

I have made these remarks upon this subject, because I consider it as deeply con- 
nected with the great interests of this country. I have endeavoured to show, and I 
hope have successfully shown, that the body which I represent, the real abiding 
members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as a body, are not to be charged with 
being guilty of that kind of offence, as it is considered in the Southern States, and by 
our Southern brethren, and that it ought not to be imputed to them. ‘That there are 
individual members who adopt these abolition views, and who have even in this 
Church, by their petitions, excited the Southern mind, and induced them to act with 
the precipitancy to which I have adverted, there can be no doubt. 

I have now, I believe, gone over this case, and I think I have said enough to satisfy 
the Court that these plaintiffs can have, upon sound principles of law and equity, as 
administered in cases of this kind, no right to this property; that they have not 
waited to abide by the agreement which was made between these parties, which I 
verily believe would have effected a division of the property, as well as a division 
of the Church, if they had waited, and which I verily believe also on sound princi- 
ples might have been carried out under the sanction of a court of equity, but not 
without such sanction. And I do think if they were to discontinue this suit, and let 
it pass away, that an arrangement would be effected between these parties in a spirit 
of peace, and in the spirit of that religion which they all profess, and which I trust 
most of them, or the great body of them, feel and act upon. Why, it would be most 
extraordinary if compromises in these religious controversies could not take place. 
Nine-tenths of the disputes of the world are settled by compromise ; and is a religious 
controversy to form the only exception? Are men who are bound together by the 
same religious faith, professing the same principles, worshipping the same God, seeking 
the same home hereafter, and by the same religious process,—are they alone to be an 
exception to this great principle of settling controversies by compromises? I trust 
not ; and that I believe is the way, and the only way, in which this question ever can 
be settled. 

If the Court will allow me, I will call their attention to another subject. I am 
aware that an attempt has been made to raise a prejudice against my clients, for 
holding on to this controversy. I will call the attention of the Court to some resolutions 
of the Conference of 1848 on this subject, to be found on pp. 94 and 95 of the Journal :— 


325 


* Whereas it is now ascertained that the recommendation of the General Conference 
at its session in 1844, to change the sixth restrictive article, so as to allow of a divi- 
sion of the property of the Book Concern with a distinct ecclesiastical Connexion 
which might be formed by the thirteen annual conferences in the slaveholding States, 
has not been concurred in by a vote of three-fourths of all the members of the seve- 
ral annual conferences present and voting on said recommendation ; 

‘And whereas the thirteen protesting annual conferences in the slaveholding States 
have formed themselves into a separate and distinct ecclesiastical Connexion, under 
the title and name of the ‘Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ and their General 
Conference in 1846 did authorize three commissioners (whose credentials have been 
received by this General Conference) to present and adjust their claim on the funds 
of the Book Concern of the Methodist Episcopal Church ; 

‘«« And whereas our common and holy Christianity prescribes and enjoins the most 
pacific measures for the settlement of all matters in dispute between individuals, as 
well as associations of professing Christians, and the whole Christian world will ex- 
pect ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ to adopt the most peaceful and conciliatory 
measures for the settlement of any claim that may be urged against them ; 

‘‘ And whereas this Conference desires to advance, as far as its constitutional 
powers will authorize, toward an amicable adjustment of this difficulty ; therefore, 

** Resolved, By the delegates of the several annual conferences of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in General Conference assembled, that we hereby authorize the 
book agents at New-York and at Cincinnati to offer to submit said claims to the de- 
cision of disinterested arbiters; provided that if said agents, on the advice of emi- 
nent legal counsel, shall be satisfied that when clothed with all the authority which 
the General Conference can confer, their corporate powers will not warrant them to 
submit said claim to arbitration, this resolution shall not be binding upon them. 

“2. Resolved, That should the agents find, upon taking such legal counsel, that 
they have not the power to submit the case to voluntary | arbitration, and should a 
suit at law be commenced by the commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, said agents are hereby authorized, then and in that case, to tender to aiid 
commissioners an adjustment of their preferred claims by a legal arbitration under 
the authority of the Court. 

“3. Resolved, That should the agents find that they are not authorized to tender 
a voluntary arbitration, and should no suit be commenced by the commissioners afore- 
said, then and in that case the General Conference, being exceedingly desirous of 
effecting an amicable settlement of said claim, recommend to the annual conferences 
so far to suspend the ‘sixth restrictive article’ of the Discipline, as to authorize our 
book agents at New-York and Cincinnati to submit said claim to arbitration.” 


It thus goes on with a number of resolutions to the same effect, inviting an amica- 
ble adjustment of this case. My clients then cannot be blamed for having brought 
on this controversy, or for its continuance. 


Hon. Reverpvy Jounson,—May it please your Honours, I propose to consider 
the question in this case under four general heads :-— 

The first is, the power of the General Conference of 1844 to adopt the Plan of 
Division of the 8th of June of that year. 

2d. The construction of that Plan; which, asI shall maintain, is that the division 
of the Church was made to depend exclusively upon the decision of the conferences 
in the States in which slavery exists, and upon no other contingency, and that the 
change in the sixth restrictive article in the constitution of the General Conference 
was made to depend, and solely to depend, upon the decision of all the annual confer- 
ences of the entire Church as at that time constituted. 

3d. That by force of the division of the Church, produced under the Plan, by 
the decision of the annual conferences in the States in which slavery exists, the pro- 
perty of the Church is to be divided, upon equitable principles, between the two 
Churches, North and South, without regard at all to any change of what is termed 
the sixth restrictive article. 


326 


Ath and lastly. That admitting that the Conference of 1844 had no authority to 
adopt the Plan of Division which they undertook then to adopt, or that that Plan 
was conditional, and the condition not carried out, the state of things which still 
exists entitles the plaintiffs to relief upon the present bill. 

These inquiries are, all of them, pla and simple. To be fully comprehended 
they require no extent of legal learning—no depth of particular research. To be 
properly enforced they demand no particular ability ; and I should therefore approach 
the argument, if the controversy turned upon them alone, with no other solicitude— 
great as the pecuniary amount which depends upon this decision may be, and impor- 
tant as it is to those whom I represent—than that which ordinarily and properly 
belongs to the relation of counsel. But I confess a deeper and more absorbing 
anxiety ; and that I rise oppressed by the responsibility which I feel is upon me. 
When I remember the origin of this dispute, I lose sight of the dollars and cents 
which it involves, and for a moment forget the direct and peculiar interest of my 
clients. There are reflections connected with that origin of such general and pervad- 
ing interest,—so directly and vitally important to the usefulness of this very esti- 
mable denomination of Christians heretofore so harmonious and prosperous,—so 
material to the quiet of the public mind, and possibly so important to the very exis- 
tence of the form of government under which we live, that I feel a trembling and 
nervous apprehension lest the proper adjudication of it by this Court, instead of 
being assisted, may be, in a measure, impeded by the manner in which I shall dis- 
charge my duty. The heart of the entire nation has been feverishly palpitating for the 
last few years, and yet so palpitates, in fear that, unless the very cause from which 
this dispute springs, is speedily and forever terminated by the good sense, virtue, and 
patriotism of the people and ofall the authorities, state as well as national, the peace 
and happiness, the power and the glory which have heretofore illustrated our 
career, and made us the admiration if not the envy of the world, will be substituted 
by discord and wretchedness, debility and degradation, civil war and bloodshed. 
And is it too much to say that this alarmed state of the public mind is, in a great 
measure, to be attributed to the very controversy which your Honours are now called 
upon to settle? I have an abiding hope, and it is a consolation which will go with 
me through the argument, that the principles of law which the Court will have occa- 
sion to inculcate, and the rights which your duty will call upon you, as it will be your 
pleasure, to maintain as existing in the various sections of these United States, are 
such, and so firmly established, that, with the claims to the respect and confidence 
of all, which station, attainment, and patriotism give to this tribunal, the settlement 
of this case will tend much to quiet the public apprehension as well as to settle the 
particular dispute. It will be my part, as far as I am able, to assist the Court in the 
deliberations, which I trust will lead to this happy result. 

First. Had the Conference of 1844 the power to adopt the Plan of Division of the 
8th of June in that year? 

My learned brothers upon the other side deny the power, and deny it with an 
earnestness and an ability which demonstrates a foregone conclusion in their own 
minds, that if the power can be maintained the rights of the complainants will be 
established.. Where then in 1844 was the Methodist Episcopal Church in these 
United States? An associated body of men, tracing their origin, as far as their 
particular and exclusive organization was concerned, to the proceedings of what 
has been denominated the General Conference of December, 1784. In the exercise 
of their rights as citizens of the United States, inspired by the spirit of the holy 
calling to which the men of that day had devoted themselves, with the assent of 
Wesley, the founder of Methodism, they resolved upon establishing a particular and 


327 


exclusive ecclesiastical jurisdiction for themselves within the limits of the United 
States, if not co-extensive with the continent of America. I understand my brother, 
who spoke first upon the other side, as conceding, what indeed could not be denied, 
that in the very nature of such an association, whether looking to its original and 
inherent rights at the moment of the adoption of its constitution, or at the objects to 
be accomplished through the instrumentality of that constitution, there must exist 
somewhere a power to change ;—and indeed it cannot be true that such power does 
not continue to exist, unless it be true that as a matter of law the exercise of such 
a power, by reason of that exercise, exterminates then and forever the power itself. 
Now if I can show to the Court—standing upon the authority of that concession, if I 
had not even higher ground to stand upon—that the Conference of 1808, which dele- 
gated its powers to the Conference by whom the Plan was adopted of June 8, 1844, 
had all the powers of the original Conference of 1784, the controversy in this branch 
of it is at an end. 

Methodism, as you know, honours, and may well and proudly honour, as its author 
and founder, John Wesley, of England, an Elder in the Church of England, whose 
holy life and extent of foresight and of wisdom, well challenge admiration. Upon 
prudential and patriotic reasons, which I commend to those who differ with my 
clients in this particular exigency, he resolved that it was his duty as a man, 
and a subject, and a Christian, to take no step which could endanger the political 
institutions of his country. He established, therefore, no peculiar Church ecclesias- 
tically with reference to the government. He rendered a ready and willing obedi- 
ence, from the moment he was converted to the lights of Methodism, to the estab- 
lished Church of the land, believing, as he did, that that Church was inseparably 
connected with the political institutions of his country. His power over Methodists 
was absolute and despotic. The only government, so far as it was a government, 
that Methodists recognised, rested in his will, and reposed, and confidently and safely 
reposed, upon his virtue and piety. He appointed the preachers. In him was 
vested the property of the Church. He controlled it in everything ; and the mem- 
bers who devotedly followed him were too happy to live under the government of 
such a man. 

The tide of conversion rolled on. From the few who originally met in the private 
room ef Wesley, thousands were seen coming under his bamner, until at last, for con- 
venience’ sake, and for convenience’ sake alone, without stripping himself of any 
power which by the original form of government was his, he asked from time to 
time the advice of his followers, following it or not, just as he thought advisable for 
the interests of the Church. In anticipation of his death, he intrusted the whole pro- 
perty of the Church, which stood in his own name, and was to stand until his death, 
and the entire government of the Church, to one hundred of his followers—preachers 
of his own selection. From that time until a comparatively recent period in the 
history of the sect, the whole government was centred in these one hundred men. 
At last, Wesley’s spirit being called to the Author from whom it came, and the pro- 
gress of enlightened civilization having yet more illuminated the public mind, and 
broken down many remains of former religious persecution, the Methodist Church 
within the last fifteen or twenty years in England has become a separate ecclesias- 
tical establishment, governed by a president and governors invested with all ecclesias- 
tical power. But from first to last the entire power of the Church, whatever that 
may have been, was vested, first in Wesley, then in the one hundred men, and now 
is in the particular organization which prevails in England, without a remnant of 
power to be found elsewhere in any of the followers of this faith. 

My learned brother who concluded to-day, stated in perfect fairness, and by his 


328 


statement answers, if he will permit me to say so, a great part of the argument of 
his colleague, that there was a leading and important distinction between the delega- 
tion of mere power from a principal to an agent, and a delegation of sovereign power 
by a sovereign body to those to whom the sovereign body thinks proper to intrust 
such sovereign power. Now such was the condition of things in 1784, as far as 
concerns the power of John Wesley, when he wrote his letter of the 10th of Septem- 
ber in that year. The preachers in this country, during the revolution and before it, 
had vainly solicited from him authority to establish a religious government for them- 
selves. This he steadfastly refused. He was restrained, as he says in that letter, 
by the patriotic considerations to which I have adverted, that such an establishment 
might endanger the institutions of the country to which he owed allegiance. A train 
of events sundered the American provinces from the political government of England, 
and a new state of things existed which rendered Wesley’s scruples inapplicable, and 
made it his duty to agree that there should be such a peculiar and distinctive estab- 
lishment. Where did the predecessors of the Northern preachers, from whom all 
authority is derived, look for the power to call the Conference of 1784, for the purpose 
for which it was called? To John Wesley, as the person in whom, at that time, was 
vested the entire and exclusive sovereign power of the Church. It is unnecessary to 
inquire whether by virtue of some inherent and inalienable right, the power might not 
have been found in these gentlemen in 1784 irrespective of the will of Wesley. It is 
sufficient for me to show that in 1784 they claimed, and claimed alone, the power 
they exerted in the Conference of that year, under the authority of Wesley, as the 
author, sovereagn, and founder of the Church. Who constituted the Conference of 
17841 My learned brother, who spoke first upon the other side, would have had 
your Honours to believe, what of course he satisfied himself was the fact, that that 
Conference was called together not only by the preachers of the Church, but by all 
the lay members. There is not a word of truth in the statement, although, of 
course, the learned counsel believed it to be true. It was a general assembly of the 
preachers connected with the Methodist denomination of Christians, convoked only 
as preachers, without reference to any lay authority express or implied. Not being 
as familiar with the history of the Church as my colleague, who was kind enough to 
undertake to lay before the Court the evidence which is found spread upon the records 
in the case, I inquired, as soon as the statement was made, whether there was any 
foundation for the assertion that the Conference of 1784 had any other authority for 
its convocation than the authority of Wesley, and the authority in themselves as 
preachers alone connected with the Methodist Association. I found that there was 
not. If your Honours will turn to page 5 of the Proofs, No. 1, you will find, that 
immediately succeeding the letter of Wesley, which authorized the separate organi- 
zation, it is stated: ‘To carry into effect the proposed organization,” (Wesley’s 
proposed organization,) ‘‘a General Conference of preachers was called, to meet at 
Baltimore, at Christmas, 1784. Sixty out of the eighty-three preachers then in the 
travelling connexion attended at the appointed time. At this conference, say the 
annual minutes of 1785, it was unanimously agreed that circumstances made it expe- 
dient for us’’ (that is the preachers) ‘to become a separate body,”’ &c. They ad- 
mit no constituency. ‘The time is perhaps coming when, in all probability, they will 
be obliged to admit one for the good of the Church. They resolve for themselves, 
and for themselves alone, as the possessors of all the ecclesiastical power known to’ 
the Methodist Church, to carry out the particular organization authorized by John 
Wesley, without reference to any other authority than his, and their own conviction 
that the good of the Church demanded such a special and particular organization. 
It is true, the Church being organized in 1784 through the instrumentality of this 


329 


Conference, the travelling preachers who constituted the Church—supposing the 
Church and the governors of the Church, for the sake of argument, to be identical— 
that from the period of that Conference until 1792 there was no other General Con- 
ference of the Church. But why? Because of the difficulty, in the then condition 
of the country, the wide and almost exhaustless spread of territory over which these 
pioneers in the cause of Christ were obliged to travel, of getting to any particular 
location for the purpose of consulting as a body upon the true interests of the 
Church. But in 1792, as will be found upon page 12 of Proofs No. 1, it was deemed 
advisable by these governors—it being always understood that the governors mean 
the travelling preachers and nobody else—to bring together another general assembly 
of themselves. That was called in the same way, consisted of the same parties, was 
clothed with the same power, and bound to discharge the same duties, limited only 
by a rational and proper consideration of these duties—and the first thing that they 
did was to say of whom the General Conference thereafter should consist. The 
inconvenience of convoking the whole was still found to be pressing. The govern- 
ment in the abstract was a good one; in the particular it was objectionable, for the 
whole could not be brought together. Then they determined in 1792 who should 
constitute the General Conferences thereafter to be convened; and it was done in 
the form of question and answer. The question propounded was,— 

«Who shall compose the General Conference ? 

“« Ans. All the travelling preachers who shall be in full connexion at the time of 


holding the Conference. 
*« Quest. When and where shall the next General Conference be held? 
“ Ans. On the first day of November, in the year 1796, in the town of Baltimore.” 


Now you look in vain for any decision of that Conference of 1792 limiting the 
powers of a General Conference called under the authority of the Conference of 1792. 
You look in vain for anything to be found in that part of the record, or anywhere else 
in the Proofs, indicating a design upon the part of these travelling preachers, who ori- 
ginally constituted the entire government, to cabin and confine the jurisdiction of the 
General Conferences which were thereafter to be convened under the authority of that 
Conference. In the language of my brother who spoke last, the Conference convened, 
under the authority of that of 1792, in Baltimore in 1796 had, by the very terms of 
the constitution under which they were convened, all the sovereign authority of the 
sovereign body by whom it was delegated. No modicum of power was left elsewhere. 
The Church was not to look elsewhere for any portion of authority. The entire 
Church—meaning by the Church the government—the entire sovereignty within the 
Church and over the Church, possessed first by Wesley as its founder, then, under 
Wesley’s authority, by the General Conference of 1784, and then by the Conference 
of 1792, assembled under the authority which convened the Conference of 1785, was 
devolved upon the Conference of 1796, and descended, in an unbroken line of suc- 
cession, to that of 1808, in which consequently was vested the entire sovereignty and 
authority of the Church. 

It is unnecessary, for the purpose I have in view, to trace the action of the Confe- 
rences, in particular, from 1796 to 1808. Let us come to that of 1808. I beg your 
Honours’ attention while, with some additional particularity, I discuss the question of 
the power devolved upon the Conference of 1808. For that purpose I refer to p. 27 
of Proofs No. 1. 1796 has passed; 1800 has passed; 1804 has passed; 1808 has 
arrived ; and from 1796 down to 1808, not a suggestion is to be found, not an indi- 
cation is given, in any part of the history of this Church, which authorizes, by the 
most forced and distant implication, the inference that the Conference of 1808 and 
the antecedent Conferences were not clothed with the entire sovereign powers of the 


330 


Church. I beg your Honours, throughout the argument, to remember this. What 
is the state of things in 1808% The Church, by the blessing of God, had proceeded 
in a career of prosperity which the world had never before, in the history of the 
Christian religion, witnessed. The lights of Christian civilization had been carried 
by these servants of God into the remotest parts of the continent. The densest wil- 
dernesses had been penetrated—Christian faith, and charity, and hope, had been con- 
veyed everywhere by these humble, zealous, devoted ministers of the Saviour. The 
comparatively limited population of the United States in 1796, and the still more 
comparatively limited one of 1784, had swelled to the extent of millions. The entire 
territorial territory of the United States was beginning to be populated, and the pro- 
spect was certain and absolute that that population would increase even in a still 
greater ratio. Preachers must be left at home. The work of God, in the hands of 
these good and pious men, is not to be postponed foramoment. ‘There must be such 
men always left in the vineyard. The flock must be ever sedulously and anxiously 
watched. Some of the shepherds must at all times remain at home. A delegated 
Conference then becomes absolutely necessary to the object which the original goy- 
ernment of the Church had in view—the spread of the Gospel everywhere,—and for 
that delegation, the Conference of 1808 decided it was their duty then to provide. 

Before I take up the terms in which that provision was made, let me ask a priori, 
looking to the necessity which forced the conviction upon the Church, whether it 
could have been then the purpose of the Church to strip that General Conference of 
the powers with which those from 1784 down to 1808 were clothed, so as to render 
them incapable of accomplishing that which all other Conferences were capable of, and 
had been authorized in terms to accomplish—the salvation of the Church, the pros- 
perity of the Church, the tendency, by means of the doctrines and practices of the 
Church, of wedding a man still more efficiently to the interests and safety of his 
country, the preservation of that fraternal affection and love which had so beautifully 
and nobly illustrated the character of the governors of this Church, the preachers, 
up to the moment of this unhappy controversy—a spirit which I trust in God is not 
dead, but only sleepeth. What, then, was the condition of things in 18441? I propose 
by-and-by to call your attention to the authority on which I speak on that subject, to 
show that the existence of Methodism in thirteen States of the United States was then 
so hazarded, that its destruction was considered as absolutely inevitable, if things 
were permitted to remain as they were. 

Now is it to be imagined that such a body of men as composed the Conference of 
1808 was so short-sighted, so blinded, that they would necessarily provide in advance 
against the exercise of an authority which it might be absolutely necessary thereafter 
to exercise in order to save the Church itself !—meaning by the Church, Methodism, 
as contradistinguished from its mere government ; meaning by the Church, the Me- 
thodistical sense of the term—the connexion of good and pious men, who make the 
Bible their creed, and hold fast only to that which is there expressly disclosed, or may 
be thereby, by clear reasoning, maintained and established. Here is the argument, 
in terms, of my learned brother, by whom the case of the defendants was opened. 
The power existed in 1784, because it was a peculiarly convened Conference ; the 
power existed in 1792, because it was a peculiarly convened Conference; the 
power existed in the two Conferences, because they were called together for special 
purposes, which these preachers had in view at the time the calls were made ;* but 
that the Conference convoked in 1808, being convened. for no special purpose, was 
deprived of the authority to accomplish this vital and special purpose of preserving 
the Church. I asked my brother, and I think the Court heard me, ‘“‘ Do you mean to 
deny that there existed in 1808, somewhere in the Church, the authority to devolve 


331 


the power, which was exercised in 1844, upon the General Conference?” The an- 
swer was, ‘‘ That is a moot-point ;”’ and by a species of argument which I could not 
understand, he did not argue it, because it was mooted. He had admitted it away, 
as I stated, at the commencement of his argument. Then I have a right to assume 
that the power was somewhere in 1808. Where was it, if not in the Conference of 
1808% [crave your Honours to ask yourselves that question, when you come to 
deliberate on the case in your chambers. This Church, be it remembered, even unto 
the present time, and I speak it in no offensive sense, as regards its government, has 
been absolutely, since the days of Wesley, an aristocracy. Laymen have had, and 
now have no voice in it. If there is a layman within the sound of my voice, he 
knows he has no voice now. Heretofore they have been satisfied with the govern- 
ment. They have acted upon the saying of Pope,— 


“For forms of government let fools contest, 
That which is best administered, is best.’’ 


They perhaps will be found changing their opinion, when they find it is not always 
best administered. 

Now I want to know, if the entire sovereign power of the Church was in the min- 
isters, the preachers, what other body on the face of God’s earth was there in 1808 
upon which to devolve the power of dividing the Church, which must have been in 
the ministers, than the Conference of 1808. The ministers made the Church. The 
ministers, in the governmental sense, are the Church. The sovereigns are the min- 
isters, and if it be a part of the sovereign power, in a body of this description, to 
divide itself, then that power existed in the Conference of ministers of 1808, or it is 
gone. The admission is that it cannot be extinguished. It is absolute, inherent, and 
inalienable, as my brother, Mr. Choate, admitted. A body unlimited in the authority 
to create, is equally unlimited in the authority to destroy, responsible only to their 
consciences for the manner in which either authority is exercised. 

That being the case, and I could not make it plainer by dwelling upon it, and the 
Conference of 1808 having for the first time authorized a delegated General Con- 
ference to manage the concerns of the Church, the question is, Have they not dele- 
gated all their power? How are you to ascertain this? Whether they can resume 
it is another question. But as far as the delegation of power could be made by 
those who in 1808 possessed all the power, the inquiry is, whether the Conference 
of 1808 did not invest the General Conferences, to be called under the authority of 
the constitution they then adopted, with all their own authority. Now, what doubt can 
there be about that? I will not deny, it would be unjust to myself, and what is worse, — 
disrespectful to the Court, to contend, that the aristocrats, in the ecclesiastical sense, 
in whom the authority of this Church was vested in 1808, might not have said, that 
they would reserve to themselves a part of their aristocratic power; and I am not 
here to contend that, to the extent in which they have reserved a part of such power, 
the Conference called under the authority of the constitution established in 1808, 
possesses all the powers of the antecedent Conferences. JI admit it does not ; but that 
only shows that all is granted which is not excepted from the grant of power. If there 
are general terms, devolving the power upon the delegated body, sufficiently com- 
prehensive of themselves to transfer all the power of the body delegating, then it is 
for him who alleges that any particular power was excepted out of the operation of 
the general terms, to make it good. What, then, is excepted? Is the power 
which I shall assume existed in the Conference of 1808—that is, the power to adopt 
the Plan of 1844—communicated by the terms of their delegation, as these are found 
in the constitution they then created, to the body provided for by that constitution 4 


332 


I said that a priori such a power is to be assumed. If you will turn to the minutes 
of the Conference of 1784, you will find the first governors of this Church, saying :— 


“ And we do engage, &c., to do everything that we judge consistent with the 
cause of religion in America, and the political mterests of these States, to preserve 
and promote our union with Methodists in Europe.” 


‘The political interests,” therefore, of the States of the United States, are to 
control them in the union which they desire to keep up with their brethren across 
the waters. The exigencies of the cause of our religion here, as those exigencies 
should address themselves to the Church here from time to time, were to control 
them in keeping the union between themselves and England. What is the design 
of the Church? We are told by themselves, in 1784 :— 


«‘ What may we reasonably believe to be God’s design in raising up the preachers 
called Methodists? 


“Not to form any new sect ; but to reform the continent, particularly the Church, 
and to spread scriptural holiness over these lands.” 


Almost a world is to be saved. The American continent is to be the theatre of 
their labours. The safety of man throughout the American continent is to be the 
object of their efforts; and how, according to their own notions, was that to be ac- 
complished? I ask you to look at p. 26 of the Proofs, No. 1 :— 


“Tt is not necessary that rites and ceremonies should in all places be the same, 
or exactly alike ; for they have always been different, and may be changed to the 
diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners.”’ 


You are not to confound “rites and ceremonies’? here spoken of with the sacra- 
ments of the Church. They, the sacraments, are unchangeable. They are ordained 
of God, and no authority is communicated to his Church to alter them; no power 
is given to the Church to neglect them. At all times, in all places, under all cir- 
cumstances, God’s ordinances are to be observed. The “rites and ceremonies” 
mean, therefore, a peculiar mode of government of the Church. And the Church, 
speaking for itself, says: ‘“‘Show me the country which requires a different form of 
organization in order to accomplish the holy object in view—the safety of sinners— 
and you not only show me the right to change such organization, but you establish 
it as a duty to make the change, a Christian duty to make it. Show me the ex- 
istence of a state of things, at any time, amongst any people, that requires an altera- 
tion of the form of Church government, and you make not only a case of authority, 
but you establish the obligation to make the change.’’ And this for the very obvious 
reason, that otherwise, according to the doctrine of this Church—whether right or 
wrong is immaterial—the spread of Christian faith, as that faith is found to be dis- 
closed by the Bible; the spread of Christian doctrine, as that doctrine is believed to 
be found in the Bible ; the spread of Christian truth and Christian tenets, as such 
truths and tenets have been revealed by the Gospel, is to be made, under all circum- 
stances, at all times, in all places, the paramount object. Once show the field in 
which the Church is to operate, in the Methodistical sense of what the Church is, 
then the mere form of government is but as leather and prunella. 

Well, that was the condition of things, and the obligation upon these pious men 
when they were about to adopt the constitution for the General Conference which 
was to meet thereafter. Now, suppose I was to read that constitution, with the 
addition of some restrictions, which by way of argument it is supposed to contain, let 
us see how it would present and exhibit the authors of that constitution to the ap- 
proval of the Church or of posterity. ‘* The General Conference shall have power 


333 


to make rules and regulations for our Church, under the following restrictions and 
limitations, to wit :”? that they shall not admit into communion with the Church any 
slaveholder as a member! That they shall not admit into any official station in the 
Church any slaveholder! That they shall not admit into the high and important 
station of bishop, the superintendent of the Church, any slaveholder! although 
they, as governors of the Church may be satisfied, that without the addition of 
slaveholders as members, officers, or bishops, the Church is extinguished in the 
South. I am assuming the fact for the sake of argument, would they not be ob- 
noxious to the objection, ‘‘ Why, gentlemen, you are a halted and crippled body. 
You are not only not invested with the power of your Creator, God, and in a con- 
dition to carry out the great and vital objects which he has in view, by bringing 
upon the earth his Church ; but you deprive an entire land of the benefit of this, 
your Church, which you profess to believe, and no doubt sincerely believe, is as 
good, if not the very best of sects into which Christians are divided. If you have 
done that, have you not gone directly counter to one of the articles of your religion? 
(for what I read from p. 26, is the 22d Article of Religion.) Have you not said, 
that the mere form of government is to give way to the exigency which arises from 
the diversity of country, peculiarity of times, and peculiarity of manners? Do you 
not know that the South, in relation to this particular institution of slavery, is diverse 
from the North? Do you not know that the times in the South are not your times 
in the North? Do you not know that there is, in relation to the particular domestic 
institution in the South, a peculiarity of manners, and a conviction consequent upon 
it, which is not to be found in the North? What do you mean, therefore? Do you, 
can you mean, that the Church which you are about establishing, is not to be estab- 
lished with authority to accommodate itself to the change of country, change of 
manners, and peculiarity of times? Are you Christians? Do you not wish the 
South to be enlightened? Do you not wish your brother-man, master and slave, 
there to be saved? Do you not see that if in the spirit of fanaticism you keep the 
Church from the master and rob him of the blessings it is calculated to confer upon 
him, you deprive the slave of the blessings it is calculated to confer upon the 
slave? Do you not discover, if you are sincere, and are right, that there is in the 
existence of Christianity a soft and mellowing influence, which lessens for the time 
the thraldom of the slave, and may eventually lead entirely to disenthral him; and 
are you about to deprive master and slave of the happy results which must 
sooner or later flow from the preaching of your tenets? Do you not see that you 
leave the South blinded, wallowing in the very mire of their own sin? If you are 
sincere, and believe it to be a sin, do you not see that you rivet over and over 
again the chains of the slave by depriving him of the blessings of the Christian hope, 
and of the expectation of that happiness which your religion teaches, is in the next 
world, if not in this, to be his? Do you mean to abandon such a field?” Why, 
they would say, No. One of my friends whom I have in my eye, a Northern preacher, 
almost looks no. The heart says, No. It instinctively goes in advance of the judg- 
ment. (Addressing the defendants.) The South, gentlemen, is the theatre for your 
labours as well as the North; then it is your high Christian duty to accommodate 
yourselves to the South, to the times in the South, to the peculiarity of manners in 
the South. Be kind, and affectionate, and fraternal, and Christian to your Southern 
fellow-men. 

Throwing all national considerations out of view,—high and lofty as they are, they 
are nothing compared with those that spring from the higher obligations of Chris- 
tian duty ; and great and important as are the blessings which those institutions 
confer, they are nothing when compared with the blessings which Christian hope, 


334 


charity, and faith teach us we may possess,—as Christians, is it possible that the 
Conference of 1808, on whom the entire power was devolved, could have designed 
to start upon a miserable, sickly existence, by adopting an ecclesiastical govern- 
ment, utterly impotent to accomplish the leading object of its existence—the dissem- 
ination of religion over these lands, and the enlightening, through the instrumen- 
tality of this Church, of this continent? Well, then, if you could not read it in the 
proceedings of the Conference so as to strip it of the authority to carry this Church 
throughout the South, without convicting the authors of the constitution of worse 
than folly and absurdity, but of clear, palpable, and manifest violation of Christian 
obligation,—I demand of your Honours, and I know what the answer will be, 
whether, if such would be the character which they would have earned, if such had 
been the limitations of the constitution they adopted, you will not bring to the con- 
sideration of that constitution every intendment, that the powers necessary to ex- 
tend and enlarge the Church by all means in the power of the Church were in- 
tended to be vested in the General Conference, provided for in 1808. My associate 
and brother, from the existence of particular limitations in this constitution, to be 
found in the six restrictive articles, has proved, as I think, to demonstration, that 
unless some one of these articles prohibits the Conference from adopting the particular 
Plan of 1844, it had the power. I do not go over that argument. I could not 
make it stronger. I could not state it as well. There are, however, two other 
considerations connected with the subject, to which I beg leave to call the attention 
of the Court. 

The General Conference, (on page 27, 1st Proofs,) after providing for the manner 
in which the Conference shall be composed, which had been done before, go on for 
the first time to define, to limit that which was before undefined and unlimited—the 
power of the General Conference of the Church. Nothing is plainer than that. As 
I have already had occasion to say more than once, the Conference of 1784 had the 
authority to establish two organizations, for the same reason that they had the autho- 
rity to establish one. They had, consequently, the power to refuse to establish one. 
Now the General Conference, under the constitution of 1808, are to have “ full powers 
to make rules and regulations for our Church under the following limitations and re- 
strictions.”” Let me stop here and read it as it must be read, because I shall only 
add, in my reading, words which are clearly to be implied: “The General Confer- 
ence shall have powers to make all rules and regulations for our Church under the 
following limitations and restrictions, and no other.” Now mark that. It is not a 
delegated authority at all, in the sense in which the Constitution of the United States 
is a delegated authority. The whole power is given to manage the Church. The 
whole power is given to rule and regulate the Church in any and everything in which 
it may be advisable that a Church should be ruled and regulated. Nothing can be 
more clear than this—until we come to the restrictions, the entire power to rule and 
regulate the Church is in the Conference, and is to be considered only as restricted 
in the single particulars in which it was meant not to delegate the power. All the 
rest you have. You are not to imply any other limitations and restrictions than 
are to be found in the assigned limitations and restrictions. We stand in this our 
construction of this constitution upon the general terms of the grant. Let our oppo- 
nents show that these general terms are to be taken secundum subjectam materiam, 
and because to be so taken are to be subject to specific restrictions. What is the 
subjecta materia? It is not restriction. Why, said one of my learned brothers 
on the other side, the authority to rule and regulate the Church is not the authority 
to destroy it. That begs the question—in fact, was the Church destroyed? Would 
it not have been the Methodist Episcopal Church, precisely as it is now here at the 


335 


North, if the original Conference of 1784 had provided for two distinct organizations 
as to government? Nobody can deny it. The proposition confounds the Church 
with the government of the Church. They are as distinct as day from night. The 
Church, according to the Methodistical sense of the term, is necessarily unchangeable, 
because it consists of a body of men who preach that only which appears in the 
Bible, or can be made out by the true and fair interpretation of what is in the Bible. 
The government of the Church, or, according to the language of Methodists, ‘the 
rites and ceremonies” of the Church, which are synonymous with the government of 
the Church, unlike the Church, which rests upon the truths of the Bible, may be 
modified, must be modified, to accommodate themselves to times, places, and man- 
ners. These subjecte materia, therefore, which my learned brother, to whom I am 
now particularly replying, seems to suppose throw a limitation upon this power, so 
far from doing so, operate demonstrably to prove the existence of the power. Recol- 
lect, it is a body of Methodist preachers who are speaking in 1808, not the priests or 
the local authorities of the Church of Rome, nor the bishops nor the other authorities of 
the Church of England. It is, then, these preachers, these Methodist gentlemen, who 
start their existence in the world by proclaiming that their Church is one thing, their 
government of the Church another. Their Church is indivisible and indestructible. 
It stands upon the Rock of Ages. The government of the Church is to be founded 
in the prudence, and wisdom, and foresight of men, and is to be changed from time 
to time, as circumstances render it necessary for the well-being of the Church. 

There is a limitation, however, upon the power of the Conference, which, for the 
very reason I have adverted to, is placed beyond their power: that is the limitation 
to be found in the first restrictive article. I ask your Honours to come with me for 
a moment, to see the effect of that particular restriction upon the question which you 
have to decide.’ They have given all powers to make all rules and regulations, sub- 
ject to certain restrictions, and among them is :— 


“First. The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our articles of 
religion, nor establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present 
existing and established standards of doctrine.” 


Articles of religion, of course, are not mere governmental provisions. Now if you 
will turn to the proviso in the sixth restrictive article, which authorizes contingently 
a change of the restrictive articles, you will find that this first article is specially ex- 
cepted. Upon the recommendation of two-thirds of the General Conference, and the 
subsequent sanction of three-fourths of the annual conferences, the second, third, 
fourth, fifth, and sixth restrictive articles may be changed, but not the first. The 
language is :— 


“ Provided, nevertheless, that upon the concurrent recommendation of three-fourths 
of all the members of the several annual conferences, who shall be present and vote 
upon such recommendation, then a majority of two-thirds of the General Conference 
succeeding shall suffice to alter any of the above restrictions, except the first article: 
and also, whenever such alteration or alterations shall have been first recommended by 
two-thirds of the General Conference, so soon as three-fourths of the members of all 
the annual conferences shall have concurred as aforesaid, such alteration or altera- 
tions shail take effect.” 


The first article, therefore, is beyond change. It stands as the Rock upon which 
the Church is built. Everything else connected with it may be beat upon by the 
storms, and finally washed away and destroyed, but that is there now and forever, un- 
til the great judgment-day itseif shall arrive, when the hearts of all shall be disclosed, 
and the consequences of that religion, in blessing or in woe, shall fall upon saved or 


336 


sinning men. What are the articles of religion of this Church? What are its exist- 
ing and established standards of doctrine? Go to page 25 of the Proofs No, 1— 
Extracts from the Discipline of 1840. You have been told that this Discipline is pub- 
lished by each General Conference, as one entire Gospel, so to speak, of the Church. 
If errors have been discovered, they are corrected. If omissions are to be found in 
antecedent Disciplines, they are supplied, and each revolving four years gives to this 
Church the entire evidence of its articles of religion and its doctrine. Now in 1840, 
as from the first, there is no change. This comes, as it were, from the mouth of 
Wesley ; he is speaking to you, almost as it were, from the dead, through his. suc- 
cessors; and you are told by this Church in 1840, and of course in 1844—for there 
was no change in this particular—that 


“ The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation : so that whatsoever 
is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that 
it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to sal- 
vation.” 


Do as you please, brothers, in everything else. If you keep within the truths ex- 
pressly inculcated by the Bible, or which may be established by a reasonable and 
fair interpretation of the Bible, you are blameless in the sight of the Church, in the 
sight of man and of God. What is your doctrine? ‘Turn to the succeeding passage. 
‘What is your doctrine in relation to the peculiar mode of governing the Church? 
First, I should have asked the Court to look to article 13, in order to see what is 
the Church in the contemplation of these Methodist gentlemen and their predeces- 
sors :— 


“The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure 
word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered, according to Christ’s 
ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.” 


Here, then, we have the Methodistical opinion of what the Church is. We have the 
Methodist declaration of what the articles of belief of the Church are; and going to 
the succeeding article, upon the succeeding page, we have the doctrine of the Church 
comprehending the mode of government, and it tells us that the mode of government 
may be altered from time to time as occasion demands. I have not time, nor is it 
necessary, to go through everything that has been referred to. I refer in the general 
to the debates in the Conference of 1840 in Baltimore; to the debates in the Con-: 
ference in New-York, in this very celebrated year of 1844; to the answer of the 
American bishops to the letter of the English Church in 1836 and 1840; to the 
speech of Bishop Soule in the Conference of 1844; and to the speech of now Bishop 
Hamline, in what is called the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1844, to show that 
this very subject of slavery, if continued to be pressed, and suffered to become 
a doctrine in the government of the Church, would necessarily lead to the ruin of the 
Church, South. I speak it not in terms so strong as they addressed to the Confer- 
ence. In that kind and affectionate appeal to the Conference of 1844, which, tramp- 
ling, as I think, on all law, pronounced a severe judgment of condemnation upon one 
of its bishops, when addressing the Conference with all the authority of that wisdom 
which belonged to the bishops, and all the persuasiveness to be found in the long 
lives they had spent in devotion to the Church, and in the fact of their intimate and 
entire association with the Church, South and North, the bishops said : “‘ For God’s 
sake,” (I do not profess to give the words,) “ for the sake of our common Father, our 
common God, for the sake of the Church to which we have devoted our lives, stay 
your proceedings for another four years, or the Church will be ruined!” The British 
Conference are told by the bishops, North as well as South, m the kind and Christian 


337 


response which they gave to their application, which I forbear to speak of, lest I 
should go beyond the limit which charity would prescribe, ‘‘ You do not know the 
condition of things in this our America. This very subject of slavery was sought to 
be made a fundamental doctrine in our Church in 1784. It was obliged to be sus- 
pended in 1785. It was renewed from time to time until, in order to save the Church 
from disruption, to keep together this body of preachers constituting the Church, 
to keep in existence the body of men who believe and preach the doctrines which we 
pronounce to be the doctrines of the Bible, it was absolutely necessary that we should 
consult, even if they are so to be considered, the prejudices of the South.” 

Now if this state of things existed in fact,—and the evidence is all one way until we 
come to the proceedings of the Conference of 1848, of which I shall have occasion 
hereafter to speak, North and South in the main proclaiming the same truth, that the 
fate of the Church was sealed, if the doctrines and government of the Church upon 
the subject of slavery were made more stringent than they were made in 1808 and 
1816,—is it conceivable that the Conference to whom was delegated all power to 
pass all rules and regulations, except so far as specially restricted, for the Church, 
was not clothed with power to preserve the Church? The state of things which 
existed presented the question, Is the Church to be destroyed or tosurvive? Are the 
doctrines of this our Church to be carried throughout these United States, and spread 
over the continent of America by and through us, or not? ‘That is the question. 
The argument of my learned brothers on the other side is, that because under the 
power to rule and regulate, given to a governmental corporation, political or as- 
sociated, there is not delegated the power to destroy, it is a legitimate inference that 
in the particular case under the delegation of power to rule and regulate the Church 
there is not delegated the power to preserve the Church. It is perfectly immaterial, 
as far as the existence of the power is concerned, (1 am sure your Honours will not 
think you have a right to decide as to the mere exercise of the power,) whether this 
state of things, believed to exist in 1844, existed or not. If it did exist, the authority 
to rule and regulate the Church gave authority so to rule and regulate as to save the 
Church ; and whether it existed or not was a question upon which the judgment of the 
governing power was to be passed, and exclusively passed. From that judgment 
there was no appeal. Once devolve upon the Conference the power, the jurisdiction, 
to do the deed challenged, under any state of things which will justify the doing of 
the deed, then the exercise of the power is conclusive. Without making any particu- 
lar reference to the case, your Honours will remember the opinion of Chief Justice 
Marshall, in the case of McCullough and the State of Maryland, reported in 3 
Wheaton, in which he maintained the constitutionality of the Bank of the United 
States upon the ground of necessity, or its being one of the means of contributing to 
the wholesome exercise of the delegated powers to Congress. The Court said, upon 
the existence of the necessity, the judgment of Congress is conclusive; and nothing 
can be more true as a question of law. So we say here, that the Conference of 1844 
had the authority by rules and regulations—and the Plan of June 8th is but a rule or 
regulation to preserve the Church—to govern the Church, which implies the authority 
to preserve and keep it from destruction. A state of things existed which they ad- 
judged rendered that rule necessary—whether wisely or unwisely, correctly or incor- 
rectly, is, in this connexion, perfectly immaterial; it was their judgment, and the 
thing judged was within their jurisdiction, just like the case to which I have adverted. 
The Bank of the United States, as a fiscal instrument by which to enable the Congress 
to carry into beneficial operation some of the powers expressly devolved upon them, 
was for Congress alone and exclusively to decide. 

A word or two more and I leave this point. This Church was not, as is supposed 


22 


338 


by the other side, designed to be confined to the United States. It is a great error 
to suppose it. It does great injustice to the Church; and if our brethren of the 
North had had the privilege of getting up and denying such a proposition, I am 
almost inclined to think that all of them would with one accord have said, ‘It is not 
so. We stop not at the limits of the United States, great as those limits are. The 
world is before us. The world is to be the theatre of our labours.” Have they not 
sent far and wide their missionaries to preach their doctrines of faith to the benighted 
the world over? What part of the habitable globe is not, as far as they have had the 
power, the scene of their labours? Wherever man is to be found, there are these 
soldiers of the cross to be found, fighting for man’s salvation. Upon the great ocean 
of human sin, they might with almost literal truth exclaim, 


“War as the breeze can bear the billows’ foam, 
Survey our empire, and behold our home.” 


An empire not protected by the pirate’s blood-stained flag, but blessed and heralded 
by that pure and holy banner which, bathed in the blood of a Saviour God, is the 
proud and hallowed emblem of a God’s love and of man’s redemption, To say that 
such a body of men, with such holy objects in view, fighting under a Leader who 
knows neither colour nor clime in the disposition of his providence under the laws 
which he thinks proper to impose, should have no field of labour but the limited field 
embraced within the territorial compass of any mere human government, is, I speak 
it with all deference to my learned brother, to libel the Church, to disparage the 
Almighty. 
The Court adjourned. 


NINTH DAY.—Tuourspay, May 29, 1851. 


Mr. Jounson,—May it please your Honours, I continue the argument of the first 
point a while longer, as to the authority of the Conference to adopt the Plan of 
Division of 1844. My learned brothers on the other side have supposed that in the 
constitution of this Conference, as it existed in 1844, there is to be found an analogy, 
as far as concems its powers, in the Constitution of the United States. A word upon 
that subject. The well settled doctrine in relation to the Constitution of the United 
States is, that no powers are conferred by it upon any of the departments of the 
government, except such as are expressly delegated, or are fairly to be implied from 
those that are so delegated. Itisa government of enumerated powers; it came into 
existence by force of that enumeration. ‘The body that created it, or the bodies that 
created it,—for although in one sense it was created by the people, yet in another 
sense it was adopted by the States—and the States had themselves the inherent 
sovereign power which belonged to separate and organized communities. Except, 
therefore, so far as they communicated portions of such powers to the government 
of the United States, the powers themselves still remained in the communities by 
whom the delegation was made. If I was successful yesterday, I must have satisfied 
the Court that the parties creating the constitution of this Conference which assem- 
bled in 1844—that is to say, the parties constituting the Conference of 1808, under the 
authority of which the particular Conference of 1844 was assembled—were themselves 
the entire, perfect, absolute sovereigns over the whole sphere of the power belonging 
to the Church. It is, therefore, a matter of construction whether, by the terms in 
which the constitution of that Conference was created, it was the purpose of its 
authors to communicate to the government which was to be brought into existence 
under that constitution all of the powers with which the constituents creating it were 


22* 


339 


clothed. But I am not left without authority, which must be persuasive on such a 
point, if it were important to refer to authority at all. I rely upon the authority of 
the Conference of 1844 itself, and of that portion of the Conference of 1844 which 
thought it their duty in 1848 to deny the authority of the Conference of 1844 to 
adopt the Plan of Division which was adopted in that year. 

The Court will remember that amongst other things, which were, as I think, out- 
rages, although of course not so intended, perpetrated by the Conference of 1844, 
was the quasi trial, the guasi judgment, as it is admitted to be, the quasi suspension 
of Bishop Andrew from his station as bishop in that Church, upon the ground of some 
alleged misconduct on his part prior to the sentence. The friends of Bishop An- 
drew, and Bishop Andrew himself, maintained, and, in my humble judgment, triumph- 
antly maintained as a proposition of law, that under the Discipline of the Church, as 
it stood in 1844, in regard to the holding of slaves by the bishops or other officers 
of the Church, Bishop Andrew’s asserted offence, which it was admitted consisted 
only in holding slaves after he had been made bishop, was not an offence provided for 
by any law of the Church. Now, the members of that Conference, who thought 
differently in 1844, and who degraded Bishop Andrew, in justifying themselves in that 
sentence of degradation, pronounced under some general sweeping pervading authority 
which they supposed to be vested in the Conference, over the entire official and 
private conduct of its ministers, state the true doctrine of the powers of this Con- 
ference upon which we rely. Your Honours will find it on page 116 of Ist Proofs. 
It was the law of the Church, said the ministers from the South, that slaves might be 
held by the bishops as well as the preachers living in the South ; that slavery was not 
only tolerated where emancipation was prohibited, but it was a law of such binding 
and general operation as to be equivalent to a constitutional injunction. In the an- 
swer to that ground assumed by the South, these gentlemen from the North, in the 
Reply, which was prepared by a committee of themselves, to the Protest made on 
the part of the Southern members against the conduct of the Conference in the case 
of Bishop Andrew, and which Reply was sanctioned by a vote of the Conference, tell 
us (p. 116) that the condition of the Church with reference to its powers is this :— 


“Jt is, indeed, true, that the question of slavery had been long and anxiously 
agitated in the Church, and the various General Conferences had endeavoured to 
adjust the matter so as to promote the greatest good of all parties: but this very fact 
goes to disprove the position assumed in the Protest; for as the attention of the 
Church had been thus strongly called to the subject, if it had been the intention to 
guard the question of slavery by constitutional provisions, it would have been done 
when the Church actually did meet to frame a constitution. But nothing of the kind 
appears. For when, in 1808, it was resolved that the General Conference, instead 
of consisting, as before, of all the travelling elders, should be a delegated body, and 
when it was determined that that body (unlike the general government, which has no 
powers but such as are expressly conferred) should have all powers but such as are 
expressly taken away—when this vast authority was about to be given to the 
General Conference, among the limitations and restrictions imposed, there is not one 
word on the subject of slavery; nor was any attempt made to introduce any such 
restriction.” 


The clients, then, as if by anticipation, meet the argument of the clients’ counsel. 
There is, they say in advance, no similitude between the two governments—the 
Church and the national. The one is a government of delegated powers, the other 
is a government of vast, and sweeping, and universal powers, over any and every 
subject connected with the Church, except in the particulars in which these vast 
powers are pared down by express qualifications or exceptions, so as to place them 
in these particulars beyond the reach of the Conference. It is true that the writers 


340 


of this Reply were looking only to the authority to pronounce the sentence against 
Bishop Andrew ; but it is perfectly immaterial what may have been the object with 
which a reference to the elementary principles of the constitution was made. _ If those 
elementary principles are such that all power exists, except in the particulars in which 
it is expressly taken away, then, if there existed in the preachers, in the constituency 
of 1808, a power to divide this Church, there existed in the Conference created 
by them in 1808, and under the constitution defining the powers of the Conference 
created in 1808, a power to divide as one of the inherent powers of the original body, 
unless there is to be found in the constitution so created in 1808, in some one of the 
six restrictive articles, a prohibition upon the exercise of that particular power then 
originally vested in the constituency of preachers. There is no room for doubt on 
the subject. It is demonstration. He who runs may read. 

They now deny that the Conference of 1844 had a right, acting under the constitu- 
tion established in 1808, to divide this Church, upon the ground that all power was 
not communicated, although the counsel were unable to deny, and have not denied, 
that that power existed in the constituency. They maintain that in the particular 
instance the power does not exist; but when they are called upon to pass upon the 
question whether a Southern preacher has offended by becoming the holder of slaves 
before or subsequent to his becoming a preacher, they assert, for the Conference, in 
opposition to the law of the Church, an authority to pronounce a sentence of degra- 
dation, by virtue of the authority of the vast, general, sweeping, and unqualified 
powers communicated in 1808. 

What else have this Conference of 1844 done? I ask your Honours to turn to 
the resolution creating the committee of nine, p. 98, to which was referred the Decla- 
ration of the Southern members of the Conference, to be found on p. 97. That 
Declaration was signed by fifty-one or fifty-two delegates from Southern conferences, 
and a Mr. McFerrin offered this resolution :— 


“ Resolved, That the committee appointed to take into consideration the commu- 
nication of the delegates from the Southern conferences, be instructed, provided they 
cannot, in their judgment, devise a plan for an amicable adjustment of the difficulties 
now existing in the Church, on the subject of slavery, to devise, if possible, a consti- 
tutional plan for a mutual and friendly division of the Church.” 


They were not to devise a plan by which the South might secede, and take the 
consequence of being secessionists ; but some mode which that Conference had a 
constitutional right to adopt to effect a division of the Church into two Churches, 
each vested with all the rights within its territorial limits that belonged to the entire 
Church, as it then existed within the limits of the entire Church. 

A member from the South, immediately on the offering of this resolution, Mr. 
Crowder, from the Virginia Conference, seeming to suppose that it was possible that 
no constitutional mode might be found within the power of the Conference in the 
opinion of the committee, and impressed with the absolute necessity of a division—or, 
what is more likely, in order to fix upon the Conference the expression of an opinion 
that the Church, if divided at all, was to be divided constitutionally—proposed to 
strike out the word “constitutional,” so as to leave it read, ‘devise, if possible, a 
plan for a mutual and friendly division of the Church.” The Northern gentlemen 
voted against the amendment. They wanted no secession; they could not satisfy 
their own consciences with the state of things which might be brought about, of 
having their brethren of the South organize a Church which would not be entitled to 
all the rights within its own limits, that their portion of the Church would be entitled 
to within its own limits. 


341 


The result of the deliberations of that committee was the recommendation of the 
Plan of the 8th of June, 1844, under which the Church, South, has organized itself as 
an independent Church. I know that I am right when I say that there was not a 
leading man—and there were many leaders of eminent ability on both sides—in this 
Conference of 1844, who whispered a doubt, after this very plan was reported, of the 
want of constitutional power in the Conference to adopt it. I beg your Honours to 
bear that in mind. Not one of the fathers of the Church—justly entitled to as well 
as enjoying the confidence of the Church upon every ground, personal, moral, reli- 
gious and intellectual—to whom the constitution of the Conference of 1844 was as 
familiar as the Bible of their God, even suggested, as a doubt possible to be enter- 
tained, that there did not exist in the Conference of 1844 a power to divide the 
Church as proposed by that Plan. There may have been expressions of opinion in 
the annual conferences afterwards, and there may have been, in advance of the meet- 
ing of the Conference of 1848, in some of the religious newspapers of this denomina- 
tion, the suggestion of a question, or the expression of a positive opinion of the 
absence of any authority to adopt the Plan of 1844; but before 1844, during 1844, 
and pending the proceedings which led to the Plan of Separation in 1844, in all the 
debates on that Plan, pro and con., the existence of arational doubt to divide according 
to that Plan was not pretended. That is not all. It was a part of that Plan that 
the third resolution incorporated into it, which looks to a change of the sixth restric- 
tive article in the constitution of the Church, should be submitted to the annual con- 
ferences of the Church generally ; and the last resolution makes it the duty of the 
bishops to submit that particular part of the Plan to the annual conferences, in order 
to get their sanction of the Plan, so far and so far only. 

Where, then, were these brethren of the North? Behind no men in the Church, 
or out of the Church, in worth and intelligence—where were they? I say it with no 
purpose of flattery ; for that, I trust, I am incapable of, and they do not require it, if I 
were capable. ‘The proposition is—I speak with reference to both my learned brothers 
on the other side—that although there exists somewhere in the Church necessarily 
an authority to divide itself into two organizations, yet that such authority was not 
vested in the particular Conference of 1844. Where were these gentlemen of the 
North, then, if they entertained such an opinion, when they voted upon the twelfth 
resolution in the Plan, which will be found on p. 131, and the twelfth resolution alone, 
which provides— 


“That the bishops be respectfully requested to lay that part of this report requiring 
the action of the annual conferences before them as soon as possible, beginning with 
the New-York Conference.” 


What part of it? If the Conference had not the power of itself to adopt the Plan 
in that part of it which looked to a division of the Church without the consent of all 
the annual conferences, then that part of the Plan demanded the sanction of all the 
annual conferences. ‘Therefore, these brethren virtually said: ‘‘ We wish not the 
annual conferences to be consulted at all upon the subject, except with reference to 
that part of the Plan which by its terms is made to depend upon their sanction” — 
that part which is to be found in the third resolution, and which looks to a change 
in the sixth restrictive article. They affirm, then, that the rest of the Plan can 
stand on the inherent, and then unchallenged power to adopt it, vested in the Ge- 
neral Conference. What did the bishops do in pursuance of that twelfth resolution ? 
They issued their address to.the annual conferences, to which my colleague referred, 
asking them to consider the propriety of changing the sixth restrictive article, and in 
doing so they state their opinion that the entere Plan is obligatory. I am speaking 


» 


342 


now of the question of power. ‘These five gentlemen, clothed with every claim to 
regard, as to the law of this Church, having presided at the very deliberations which 
led to the adoption of the Plan, announced to the entire Church as their opinion, that 
the Plan was constitutionally binding in every particular, as well in the particulars 
in which its binding operation was made to depend on the subsequent assent of the 
annual conferences, as in the other particular, the division of the Church, as to which 
its binding operation is merely to depend upon the ascertainment of the fact that in 
the judgment of the annual conferences in the slaveholding States a division was 
necessary. Where was then the idea which we have heard commented on by the other 
side, of that unity of government existing in 1844 which put it out of the power of 
the Conference of 1844 to divide itself? Did not that Conference know—was it not 
engraved on the mind of each of the members constituting that Conference—that the 
Discipline of the Church inculeated union? Did they not know that the authority 
communicated to the Conference created in 1808, was an authority to make “rules 
and regulations for our Church?’ Did they not know what had been the blessings 
of an itinerant superintendency and a travelling ministry? Why, certamly. ‘They 
knew, therefore, of the existence of this supposed unity, and it never entered into 
their brains to conceive that there was to be found in such unity of the Church a con- 
stitutional prohibition upon the authorities of the Church to create two Churches, with 
reference to government, where one only before existed. But what is there in this 
idea of the unity of the Church? It is confounded in the minds of my brothers on 
the other side with the government of the Church. The unity of one does not depend 
upon the existence of unity in the other. Wesleyan Methodists are to be found 
wherever Christianity is to be found—Methodists who now owe allegiance to this 
body are to be found the world over. They all constitute one Church, one Methodist 
Episcopal Christian Church ; but they are governed differently, and they inculcate 
the necessity, in order that there may be this one Church, of different forms of govern- 
ment, that this one Methodist Church may accommodate itself, as a Church, to the 
country, and the times, and the circumstances in which it may find itself. 

If I satisfied the Court yesterday that the Conference of 1784 (indeed there was 
no necessity for it on my part, for the learned counsel admitted it) had the autho- 
rity to have then organized two Churches, does it not necessarily follow that there is 
not to be found in the idea of Church unity any negative upon the power to divide 
itself into two forms of government? That must be very clear. Then would not 
the Conference called together in 1784 have provided that there should be two terri- 
torial organizations of Methodists with reference to government, within the limits of 
the United States, one South and the other North, if they had anticipated the state 
of things which existed in 1844 ; if, looking to the existence of this peculiar domestic 
institution to which the South adheres, and which is so obnoxious to some in the 
North, they had supposed cither section of the United States would be liable to be 
put under the control of the prejudices of the other upon moral political administra- 
tive questions? Why, certainly ; and yet there would then have been but one Me- 
thodist Episcopal Church, not two denominations preaching different doctrines and 
inculcating a different faith, but one indivisible united denomination of Christians, 
constituting, in the Methodist opinion, the one Church, clothed with all the sanctity 
of unity. If that could have been done in 1784, according to the same train of rea- 
soning by which I tried to conduct the Court to the conclusion to which I invited 
them yesterday, it could equally have been done by the Conference of 1792, or either 
of the succeeding conferences, including the Conference of 1808, which created the 
Conference which, in 1844, adopted the Plan of Division of June, 1844. 

Our brothers, and their clients, discovered only about 1848—they had, as is obvi- 


343 


ous, acted upon a different notion altogether before—that although what had been 
done in the case of the Canada division established the existence of the power to 
divide, there was to be found in the circumstances of the Canadian connexion with 
the American Church something which distinguished the American and Canadian 
Churches in their connexion from the connexion which subsisted between the 
Southern and Northern Methodists as members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
the United States. My friends find in that case a stumbling-block in the way of their 
argument against the existence of the power in question. They have told your 
Honours that the connexion between the American and the Canadian Churches was a 
mere league, existing by force of a mere treaty, not bringing about, as between the 
Canada Conference and the American Church, one united and indivisible Church, 
but one which existed not by force of any governmental existence, not by virtue of 
any constitutional existence, but by virtue of some supposed, undefined, unintelligi- 
ble agreement, resulting in a peculiar and undefinable relationship between the two. 
May it please the Court, we have had, as we all know, various theories about the 
Constitution of the United States, in the different schools of our statesmen. The 
one have considered it as flowing immediately from the people, and not as consti- 
tuting a compact between the States, and existing only by force of that compact, 
and remaining only in existence as long as each one of the contracting parties 
thought proper to permit. The difference between the two schools is now threaten- 
ed to be put in practical operation. South Carolina now announces the rule of 
constitutional law to be, very many in the South out of South Carolina announce 
the rule of constitutional law to be, that there is no government, in the sense in 
which I am sure this Court believe thcre is a government, created by force of the 
Constitution of the United States, but that the States are bound solely together by 
virtue of a league, a treaty, to be found in the assent upon the part of each one of 
the States, that as between itself and all the other States it agrees to constitute a 
portion of the Union, and that it has a right therefore to march out of that Union, 
to put an end to the agreement; and this is threatened to be done. In the days of 
nullification, when the right to secede was claimed upon a different ground from that 
which now occasions its assertion, the exercise by congress of its authority to lay 
imposts and duties, the same doctrine was, in substance, announced. Your Honours, 
I am sure, are familiar with the paper, but if you desire to refresh your recollections 
turn, before you decide upon this question, to the memorable proclamation of Presi- 
dent Jackson, draughted, as is well known, by the then secretary of state, Mr. 
Livingston, in which he meets the question as to the consequences to result from the 
binding operation of the Constitution of the United States, whether that constitution 
be considered as emanating from the people directly, or as having been the creature 
of a compact between each State and her sister States. The argument is this: that 
it made no possible difference whether it came into existence by virtue of the act of 
the people individually, or by virtue of a compact between the States. The question 
still was, What were the powers of the government which was brought into existence? 
Were they such powers as demanded for their execution, for their preservation, for 
the maintenance of the government so created, that each State of the Union should 
be held to be, during all time, a portion of the government of the Union, controlled 
by the Constitution of the United States? There was no unprejudiced man in the 
United States who doubted then upon the question. 

Now, let us apply to the supposed distinction between the Canadian case and the 
case which existed in 1844 the doctrine of that proclamation. The Canadian Con- 
ference existed before they were introduced into the American Church. Suppose it 
did. What was its condition after it was introduced! How was it introduced? 


344 


What was the consequence of its introduction? It was introduced as an annual con- 
ference, sent its delegates to the General Conference ; it became, analogically speak- 
ing, one of the States of this political hierarchy, and bound by all the obligations, 
and responsible to all the duties which the rest of the Church were bound by or 
responsible to. My brother who spoke first on the other side, said, that in the nature 
of things there must have been a territorial limit to the American Church, because it 
had no authority to go beyond the limits of the United States. Why not? Does 
the Gospel of Christ know any territorial limits? Is the religion of our Saviour 
bound by any geographical lines? I beg pardon for putting any such inquiries. 
There may be, in the particular, local, political governments of some countries, im- 
pediments which prevent it from getting within the limits of such territories; but 
when there are no such territorial obstacles in peculiar territorial governments, the 
world is before it, not where to choose, but where, from its high and holy calling, it 
is obliged to go. What says the Discipline? In the History of the Discipline, page 
110, we find the following note to the 23d article of religion :— 


“* As far as it respects civil affairs, we believe it the duty of Christians, and espe- 
cially all Christian ministers, to be subject to the supreme authority of the country 
where they may reside, and to use all laudable means to enjoin obedience to the 
powers that be; and therefore it is expected that all our preachers and people, who 
may be under the British or any other government, will behave themselves as peace- 
able and orderly subjects.” 


It would have been well for the preachers of the North, who were parties to the 
proceedings which resulted in the separation of 1844, to remember that it was ex- 
pected of them that they should behave themselves as peaceable and orderly 
citizens. 


“This note was added especially to meet the peculiar case of the brethren in Ca- 
nada, against whom unfounded suspicions had been created, because the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, of which they were then a part, was regarded as a foreign eccle- 
siastical authority.” 


The Canadian Church was separated in 1828. The question is, What were its 
obligations, and duties, and rights when it wasin? Did they claim, as South Carolina 
now does, to secede by virtue of any independent authority of their own, or by vir- 
tue of any reserved right, or inherent right growing out of the particular character 
of the constitution which brought them into the American Church? 

Turning to pp. 32 and 33 Proofs No. 1, I find a petition ‘ to the bishops and mem- 
bers of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church,” from the “ Ca- 
nada Annual Conference,” one of the conferences constituting the Church, and 
sending delegates to the General Conference :— 


“The Canada Conference having, after mature deliberation, deemed a separation 
expedient, most humbly pray that they may be set off a separate and independent 
Church in Canada.” 


** Set off,” by whom? According to the learned counsel on the other side, it was 
only for them. to say that they willed it, and they could go off; it was only for them 
to say they would establish for themselves a separate Church organization, and 
it was done. That is not the view they took of it. They then go on to give the 
reasons why they ask the General Conference to set them off a separate and inde- 
pendent Church. They are :— 


“1st. Our political relations, and the political feelings of a great part of the com- 
munity, are such that we labour under many very serious embarrassments on account 


345 


of our union with the United States, from which embarrassments we would, in all 
probability, be relieved by a separation. 

“2d. The local circumstances of our societies in this Province; the rapid increase 
and extension of the work, both among the white inhabitants and the Indians; the 
prospects of division among ourselves, if our present relation be continued, render it 
necessary for us to be under ecclesiastical regulations somewhat of a peculiar char- 
acter, so as to suit our local circumstances. 

‘3d. It is highly probable that we shall obtain some important religious privileges 
by becoming a separate body. 

‘4th. In the event of a war between the two nations, it would be altogether im- 
practicable for a superintendent to discharge the duties of his office unless he be resi- 
dent in this Province. 

“5th. It isthe general wish of our people in this Province to become separate ; 
nor will they, according to present appearances, be satisfied without such sepa- 
ration.”” 


Now let us see what was proposed to be done, and then what was done. On 
page 34 I find that the committee to whom this matter was referred, report :— 


“The committee are unanimously of the opinion, that, however peculiar may be 
the situation of our brethren in Canada, and however much we may sympathize with 
them in their present state of perplexity, this General Conference cannot consistent- 
ly grant them a separate Church establishment, according to the prayer of the peti- 
tioners.” 


Why not? If the theory now relied upon be correct, the relationship had existed 
by means of a treaty ; the contracting parties were the American Church on the one 
side and the Canadian Church upon the other; they existed as one, simply because of 
the operation and authority of that treaty. If, as my learned brother, who spoke first 
on the other side, and to whom I am particularly replying, supposed, the connexion 
between the Canada Church and the American Church was only by treaty, and was 
like a treaty between the United States and any foreign power, that it could be divi- 
ded by a treaty to which each of the original contracting parties agreed—if this be so, 
I ask how it is possible that a unanimous opinion could be entertained that there was no 
authority to grant the prayer of this petition?) What doubt could there have been on the 
subject, if Canada was a contracting party to a treaty and desired to go, and the 
American Church, the only other party, was willing to let her go? Why, it would 
be a singular sort of treaty which the parties themselves could not get rid of. If the 
theory of our friends is well founded, it is a species of domestic economy that would 
prove very beneficial to a certain class of citizens, even perhaps members of the bar, 
not to speak of others, which brings into possession property which they could not 
get rid of. This committee were unanimously of the opinion, that as things then 
were there was no authority to organize a separate organization of the Canadian 
Church. Let us see if they believed in the theory now taken, that the connexion 
was the result of a treaty between these two original parties which either would be 
at liberty to dissolve. The committee says :-— 


“The committee, therefore, recommend to the General Conference.” 


What? 


“That inasmuch as the several annual conferences have not recommended it to the 
General Conference, it is wnconstitutional.”’ 


Then if they had recommended it, it would have been constitutional. They want 
a change of government, not the authority to dissolve a league. Considering that 
the power existed in the constituents of the General Conference, the annual confer- 


346 


ences, they wish first to have a vote of the annual conferences consenting to the 
separation, and then they say the General Conference could authorize the establish- 
ment of a separate Church in Canada; then, instead of being unconstitutional, it 
would be plainly constitutional. This is somewhat inconsistent with the idea, relied 
on by my friends on the other side with so much ability, that there was something 
peculiar in the relationship between the Canadian Church and the American Church. 

Now what did they dot Their sympathies ran so high, and they regretted so much 
the perplexity of their Canadian brethren, that they suffered the Canadian brethren 
to establish a separate Church, and that by an almost unanimous vote. How do 
they do it? On p. 37, we find it resolved— 


“That, whereas the jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United 
States of America, has heretofore been extended over the ministers and members in 
connexion with said Church in the Province of Upper Canada, by mutual agreement, 
and by the consent and desire of our brethren in that Province; and whereas this 
General Conference is satisfactorily assured that our brethren in the said Province, 
under peculiar and pressing circumstances, do now desire to organize themselves 
into a distinct Methodist Episcopal Church, in friendly relations with the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in the United States, therefore be it resolved, and it is hereby re- 
solved, by the delegates of the annual conferences in General Conference assembled: — 

“‘ That if the annual conferences in Upper Canada, at its ensuing session, or any 
succeeding session previously to the next General Conference, shall definitely determine 
on this course, and elect a general superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in that Province, this General Conference do hereby authorize any one or more of 
the general superintendents of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, 
with the assistance of any two or more elders, to ordain such general superintendent 
for the said Church in Upper Canada,” &c. 


That was done. It is not worth while to be hypercritical in the consideration of 
the terms on which it was done. There was a jurisdiction existing, whether by 
agreement or not is not material. It all exists by agreement. These annual con- 
ferences come under the General Conference by agreement ; there is no political 
power, no ecclesiastical power by which they can be brought in against their own 
consent, or kept in against their own will. The Church lives in every member of 
it by agreement, but still it lives as a Church, governed by its peculiar form of gov- 
ernment as long as it does live. The Canada case is exactly a case in point. The 
power exerted was the same. The necessity in one sense for the exercise of the 
power was the same. The manner in which it was exercised was substantially the 
same. And from 1828, when that power was exercised, up to the time when your Hon- 
ours have been called upon to hear this cause, or up to a period comparatively recent, 
nobody whispered the existence of a rational doubt of the power of the General Con- 
ference to divide itself into as many separate and distinct Churches as in their judg- 
ment the good of the Church demanded; as far as I am advised, no one of the 
annual conferences which was called upon to decide under the third resolution of the 
Plan of Division, whether they would change the sixth restrictive article of the con- 
stitution of the Church, ever, by vote or declaration, denied the constitutionality of 
the division. I beg your Honours to bear that in mind. Whether there were 
expressions of individual opinion was another matter ; but no vote was taken, no pro- 
position was suggested, looking to any distant and definitive action upon the part of 
any one of the annual conferences, North or South, against the constitutional power 
of the Conference of 1844 to adopt the Plan of Division of 1844. 

That is not all. These gentlemen, now members of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, North, have fallen very far short of their duty, if the theory upon which 
they are now acting be a sound one. They are responsible to the Church, and, what 


347 


is still more, to their God, for a very lame and imperfect performance of their duties. 
They say that the division authorized and organized under the Plan of 1844 was un- 
constitutional. In the Conference of 1848, at Pittsburgh, they said it was brought 
about by the act of the Southern members without cause. They say, through their 
counsel now, in the presence of your Honours, that these Southern members are 
all secessionists. Gentlemen, do you believe it? Gentlemen defendants, do you 
conscientiously believe it? Of course, they must say ‘“ Yes.”” Then march up to 
the duty which is upon you. It was a part of that Plan, as the Court will see on 
pp- 130 and 131, not dependant in any way on the assent of any annual conferences, 
except the assent of the annual conferences in the slaveholding States to the first 
resolution, 


“That all the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in meeting-houses, 
parsonages, colleges, schools, conference funds, cemeteries, and of every kind within 
the limits of the Southern organization, shall be forever free from any claim set up 
on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as this resolution can be of 
force in the premises.”’ 


Now if the Plan is unconstitutional, go and take this property. Do not tell me that 
there is to be found in the prejudices of the Southern tribunals an obstacle to success. 
The tribunals of the United States are open; they are raised above the level of any 
possible supposed local prejudices—standing upon a more elevated platform, looking 
over the whole country, and bound to free themselves from the existence of anything 
like sectional or other prejudice or partiality. Go into the courts of the United 
States. The property here referred to is worth millions. Get back the meeting-houses, 
the parsonages, the colleges, the schools, the conference funds, the cemeteries, within 
the limits of the Southern Church. The men who hold them are no part of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. They are mere wrong doers. Do not content your- 
selves with keeping merely the money which happens to be located at theNorth ; do not 
satisfy yourselves with refusing to dole out the miserable pittance which has heretefore 
supported the wants of the aged, and infirm, and supernumerary preachers, and their 
families, in the South; do not keep that for your own preachers, your own wives, 
and your own children ; but if you are right, get back this vast amount of property, 
devote it to the cause of your Church to which these Southern separatists have no 
title to belong. These Southern schismatics, with, as you pretend to believe, the 
branding degradation of slavery upon their brow, have no right to it ;—put it in the 
hands of pure Christian men—men who are sufficiently pure and Christian to carry 
God’s tidings of salvation everywhere, and administer the sacraments of his love to 
all; do not leave it in the hands of these lost Southern men. But they have not 
done this. Why not? Can any reason be given, except a conviction that the pro- 
perty belongs to the South? Can any reason be given consistent with their duty, 
except a conviction that it was made the property of the South by force of this very 
separate organization of the Southern Church, under the authority of the Plan of 
Separation of 1844? There have, it is true, been some adventurous spirits who 
have screwed themselves up to the sticking point of maintaining that the Plan being 
unconstitutional and void, fell in all its particulars to the ground, and that the 
Church and its property, everywhere, stands as it stood before the Plan of 1844 was 
adopted. 

Your Honours have been referred to one case, where a gentleman named Arm- 
strong, claiming to have been a large contributor to a meeting-house in Maysville, 
Kentucky, with some followers, conscientious, I have no doubt—God forbid that I 
should doubt that they were influenced by proper motives—contested the right of the 


348 


Southern Church to that meeting-house, upon the very ground of the absolute nullity 
of the Plan of Separation, and the absolute nullity consequently of the title to the 
meeting-house which was dependant upon that plan. 

The case was first taken before a single judge vested with chancery jurisdiction, 
and he came to the conclusion, that, under the circumstances of the particular case, 
and by force of the provisions of a Kentucky statute of general operation, applying, 
as he considered, to the case, the equitable mode of disposing of the property would 
be to give the use of the house one week, or one Sunday, to one branch, and the next 
week, or the next Sunday, tothe other branch. The case was carried up to the Court 
of Appeals of Kentucky. I commend your Honours to that decision, as delivered by 
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in which throughout he deems it to be too clear for 
doubt, (speaking not only for himself, but for the Court,) that the Conference of 1844 
had the constitutional right to adopt the Plan of division of that year, and that by 
force of that division the entire title to this property was vested in the Southerly or- 
ganized Church. They, the North, tried the question once, through Mr. Armstrong, 
and they tried it in vain. Now, all is acquiesced in. The South stands upon the 
title to all the property of which it is now in the actual enjoyment, by virtue of the 
constitutionality of the division authorized by the Plan of 1844—in virtue of that con- 
stitutional title, and none other. I beg your Honours to remember that. They 
stand, too, upon the authority of the Conference, which established a like separate 
organization for what was before an integral portion of the Church, in the Canada 
case. They stand upon the recorded opinions of almost every member of the Con- 
ference of 1844, that that Conference had the authority to sanction the division. 
They stand upon the unanimous opinion of the bishops, the executive heads of the 
Church, that the Conference had the authority to adopt it. They stand upon the 
opinions of the entire Conference of 1844, as far as we can find their opinions from 
their votes, that the Conference had the constitutional authority to adopt it. They 
are, therefore, covered all over with the sanctions which title can derive from pre- 
cedent, from the judicial, legislative, and executive authority of this Church, and 
from the express adjudication of a court of last resort, not surpassed by any court in 
the Union, in all the qualities which give a tribunal claims to respect. They stand, 
above all and higher than all, upon the character, the holy character of that Power 
above from which the entire authority of the Church is derived; upon the charter 
which he gives to his Church to go throughout the world, and, accommodating itself 
to the wants, and the peculiarities, and the times in which his ministers may find 
themselves, to carry his word and to proclaim the glad tidings of salvation to all. 
Lest I might forget the very words in which this mighty power is communicated— 
which, I need not tell this Court, should never be done with any language which 
flows from so sacred and so revered a source—let me read to your Honours the con- 
stitution of the Church, the higher, holier constitution of the Church, as given by 
God himself to the apostles, the first travelling preachers in his service. He tells 
them, Matthew xxviii, 18-20 :— 


‘¢ All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach 
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and 
lo, am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” 


‘‘All nations.” ‘There are no territorial restrictions upon your authority, gentlemen 
travelling preachers of this Church. Your constituent is the Maker of the universe, 
under whom and for whom you act. He knows no local distinctions which we poor 
frail beings know ; and knowing, because we are frail often do the greatest injustice 


349 


in consequence of the knowledge. He wishes all brought to salvation : the master 
to be enlightened, the slave to be enlightened ; the master to be saved, the slave to 
be saved. You libel the memory of the Author of your Church, you trample upon 
the constitution of that Church as derived from God, whom you are bound to adore, if 
you bring into the administration of the duties which he imposes upon you, any test 
which deprives you of the authority to preach to the master and to the slave. I have 
done with the first point. 

The duty which is before me in the consideration of the next three points, is com- 
paratively an unimportant one. But before I proceed to the consideration of the 
second point of my argument, although I feel that it is not necessary to the decision 
of this case, it is due to those that I represent, that I should say a few words upon 
what they believe to have been the necessity of asking for a separate organization of 
this Church. I shall be comparatively short, the whole subject having been so clearly 
and perspicuously presented by my colleague. 

The agitation of slavery in the quarterly conferences, in the annual conferences, in 
the General Conference, the judgment against preacher Harding, the judgment in the 
case of Bishop Andrew, both of them in the Conference of 1844, brought about, in the 
opinion of the delegates from the Southern conferences in the first place, and after- 
wards in the opinion of the Southern conferences, a conviction that the Church itself, 
in order to be saved, must exist under separate and distinct organizations at the South 
and at the North. My learned brother who spoke first on the other side, ingeniously 
endeavoured to maintain that, of the three reasons which were assigned, in what is 
termed the Declaration of the members from the South in this Conference, for desiring 
a separate Church organization, two of them were afterwards abandoned, and the 
other, to make the most of it, was a mere erroneous judgment of the Conference upon 
a question over which they had clear jurisdiction. Let me, in this connexion, refer 
to what is the fact in relation to this matter. In 1844, not only was a division au- 
thorized by the General Conference, if the power existed, as in this branch of the 
argument I assume, but it was demanded for the safety of the Church. In the Ca- 
nada case, whatever else may be said of it, your Honours will find, on p. 44 of 
Proofs No. 1, that it is asserted that a division was to be made, when division was 
necessary to save the Church ; that is, to save the Church there—there in the par- 
ticular locality—not to save it elsewhere where the exigency does not exist. When 
a state of things exists which endangers the usefulness of the Church, the doctrine 
of the Church 1s, divide, in order to save. Now, in the first place, the Declaration 
of the Southern delegates, in 1844, on p. 97, states the necessity of a division to 
save the Church. In the second place, the universal opinion of the Southern dele- 
gates was, that.a division was necessary to save the Church. 3d. The conduct of the 
Conference in Harding’s and in Andrew’s cases proved the necessity of a division 
in order to save the Church. 4th. The doctrines avowed by the Northern members of 
the Church in the Conference of 1844, in the Answer to the Protest of Southern 
members against the judgment in the case of Andrew, proved, beyond all doubt, the 
necessity of a division to save the Church—it being always understood that I mean 
to save the Church in the South. 5th. The opinion of each one of the annual con- 
ferences of the South was, that a division was required in order to save the Church. 
6th. The certain consequences, not relying on opinions as the only evidence, of the 
tendency of the acts of the members of the General Conference from the North, must 
have been, in the judgment of all sane men, the production of a state of things in the 
South, that would render a division of the Church absolutely imperative, in order to 
save the Church in the South. This was the opinion of the bishops of this Church 
as to the consequence of this slavery agitation, to be found in their address, upon 


350 


p. 58, and in their answer to the British Conference, pp. 64-66 ; and the opinion of 
the individual bishops, given in their collective capacity, in advance of the judgment 
on the case of Andrew, in their address to the Conference, by whom, almost imme- 
diately afterwards, that judgment was pronounced, as well as in the debate before 
the judgment, which your Honours will find on pages 88-91. 

Finally : the opinion of the General Conference of 1844, as set forth in their pre- 
amble to the Plan of Separation, established the existence of the necessity to divide 
this Church, in order to save it in the South. 

[have not time, nor would it be right, to trespass upon the kindness of the Court, 
already so indulgently extended to me, to read the particular evidence on either of 
these points ; but the Court will pardon me, for reading a sentence or two from the 
address of the bishops, pp. 58-60—cool, unimpassioned men, not acting under the 
influence of the local agitation to which this Church was subject, but whose very 
functions of general superintendency, freed them from the prejudices which some- 
times arise from mere local opinions. ‘The address to which I refer is the address 
to the General Conference of 1840. They say in that address :— 


“ At the last session of the General Conference the subject of slavery and its abo- 
lition was extensively discussed, and vigorous exertions made to effect new legisla- 
tion upon it. But after a careful examination of the whole ground, aided by the light 
of past experience, it was the solemn conviction of the Conference that the interests of 
religion would not be advanced by any additional enactments in regard to it.” 


They had gone far enough ; a step further might be ruious. They then say that 
they advised the subject to be dropped everywhere. On page 59, after stating that 
the opinion of the Conference was generally acquiesced in, they go on :— 

“«But we regret that we are compelled to say, that in some of the northern and 
eastern conferences, in contravention of your Christian and pastoral counsel, and of 
your best efforts to carry it into effect, the subject has been agitated in such forms, 
and in such a spirit, as to disturb the peace of the Church. This unhappy agitation 
has not been confined to the annual conferences, but has been introduced into quar- 
terly conferences, and made the absorbing business of self-created bodies in the 
bosom of our beloved Zion. The professed object of all these operations ’”— 


Of course it was the professed object, and I hope the sincere object. Fanatical 
error is always sincere. When it ceases to be sincere it becomes corruption, and no 
man can imagine that in the Church. 

“The professed object of all these operations is to free the Methodist Episcopal 
Church from the ‘great moral evil of slavery,’ and to secure to the enslaved the 
rights and privileges of free citizens of these United States. How far the measures 
adopted, and the manner of applying those measures, are calculated to accomplish 
such an issue, even if it could be etfected by any action of ecclesiastical bodies, your 
united wisdom will enable you to judge.” 


If these gentlemen could only wake up to the condition of things which they have 
brought about in the Southern States, they would find that, for every rivet they have 
loosened, they have added tens and hundreds and thousands of rivets to this-very 
condition of slavery. One of the members who figured in the Conference of 1840 
and 1844, and was one of the leaders in the proceedings against preacher Harding, 
and also took a conspicuous part against Bishop Andrew, has for the last six or seven 
months been serving as chaplain to a convention in Maryland, whose very first 
step—a step which never would have been taken but for the agitation in the Church 
and out of the Church on this question of slavery—and the only measure I think 
upon which they were unanimous, was to provide as part of the organic constitutional 
law of Maryland, that manumission should not be brought about by any legislative 


351 


provision. Maryland, in the advance of the philanthropic movement, which I would 
have it understood did not begin at the North, but at the South, for putting an end 
to human bondage as far back as 1790, opened wide the doors to emancipation. But 
by the agitation in this Church and out of it, in other Churches, in the Presbyterian 
and Baptist Churches, a condition of things was brought about as far back as 1836, 
which caused the legislature of Maryland, then invested with the right of providing, 
with the assent of the next subsequent legislature, a change of the constitution, to 
change the constitution of the State, so as to take from the legislature the authority 
to authorize general manumission by an act of the legislature, unless such act was 
unanimously passed at one session, and unanimously sanctioned at the succeeding 
session—practically an impossible condition. Now this very Mr. Griffith, who in 
the Conference of 1844 sneered at the Maryland law which secured to a woman her 
slave property belonging to her at the time of marriage, on the ground that it was 
contrary to the law of God, which, according to him, gives everything belonging to 
the woman to her husband, as by Divine right, is found acting as chaplain in a con- 
vention of slaveholders who have been driven to the conviction of the necessity, 
brought about by the very excitement in which he and others have been engaged, to 
make it a part of the constitutional law of Maryland that slavery shall always exist 
within her limits. I speak under the conviction of a sincerity as great as I ever felt, 
when I say that, but for this very agitation and the making it a political matter, 
Maryland ere this would not have had a slave footprint within her limits. You have 
doomed us, those of us who have no love for that particular condition of things, and 
I confess myself to be one of them—but not upon the ground that there are any in- 
junctions in the Gospel which prohibit it, for there are none. The Author of our 
religion came not into the world to raise the arm of one man against his fellow-man, 
to bring about servile war, to carry bloodshed and desolation into the homes and 
hearths of men; He came to save through the instrumentality of doctrines sure, 
when properly understood and inculcated, to save. He came not to destroy masters. 

What say the bishops of this Church in that Christian but cutting rebuke to their 
brethren across the waters? It is due to the bishops of this Church to say that they 
have not only never taken part in this agitation, but they have done all they could do 
as Christian men to arrest it. They say, page 66 :-— 


“Under the administration of the venerated Dr. Coke, this plain distinction was 
once overlooked, and it was attempted to urge emancipation in all the States; but 
this attempt proved almost ruinous, and was soon abandoned by the doctor himself. 
While, therefore, the Church has encouraged emancipation in those States where 
the laws permit it and allow the freed-man to enjoy freedom, we have refrained, for 
conscience’ sake, from all intermeddling with the subject in those other States where 
the laws make it criminal. And such a course we think agreeable to the Scriptures, 
and indicated by St. Paul’s inspired instruction to servants, in his First Epistle to the 
Corinthians, chap. vii, ver. 20,21. For if servants were not to care for their servitude 
when they might not be free, though if they might be free they should use it rather, 
so neither should masters be condemned for not setting them free when they might 
not do so, though 2f they might they should do so rather.” 


But in these modern days, as compared with some who are to be found amongst 
us, I a pure and elevated morality St. Paul was a Hottentot, and in a far-seeing and 
far-searching wisdom Christ himself an imbecile! They seek to improve upon the 
morality of St. Paul. They attempt and claim authority to exercise the function of 
supplying the omissions of the Deity. God, speaking through Paul, tells masters to 
take care of their servants, and servants to obey their masters. ‘These modern apos- 
tles, tracing their authority to some law higher even than the law of God, proclaim 
substantially, ‘‘ Slaves, exterminate your masters ; they are your oppressors, and you 


352 


stand entitled to freedom upon some high, more elevated, purer law than is to be 
found in the Gospel of your God.” I am glad to know that the extent to which this 
fanaticism has gone in this Church is, in the particulars to which I have alluded, com- 
paratively limited but these gentlemen stand still within narrow and perilous limits 
on that question. I pray them, as servants of God, to remember that the progress 
of fanatacism is never backward, unless it be driven backward by the dread of force 
and bloodshed. The stake has often witnessed the dying sincerity of the fanatic as 
well as of the martyr. 

Pardon me for a moment in reading to you, to show the extent to which this feeling 
had gone, from the address of Bishop Andrew himself to this very Conference, who 
were about to pass judgment on his moral and religious life, and to proclaim him to 
the world as unfitted to minister at the altar of God in this the Northern section of the 
land, however competent he might be at the South. This address, which is a long 
speech, and challenges commendation, your Honours will find on page 148 of the 
Debates of the Conference of 1844. He states how he became a slaveholder; and he 
then says :-— 


“It has been said I did this thing voluntarily, and with my eyes open. I did so de- 
liberately and in the fear of God, and God has blessed our union.” 


What do you suppose he is speaking of! Why, he married a Southern lady, and 
it was said in the Conference that he ought not to have married any Southern woman 
who had slaves, that it was a sin against God to marry a female if she was the owner 
of slaves. He goes on :— 


“T might have avoided this difficulty by a trick—by making over those slaves to 
my wife before marriage ; or, by doing as a friend, who has taken ground for the reso- 
lution before you, suggested.”’ 


What do you suppose was the remedy recommended by this conscientious friend, 
who would not permit Bishop Andrew to remain in the Church because he was the 
owner of slaves by marriage? It was :— 


««¢ Why,’ said he, ‘did you not let your wife make over these negroes to her 
children, securing to herself an annuity from them? ”’ 


That would have been honest—that would have emancipated the negroes. That 
is it not all. He says he could not get rid of them :— 


“They love their mistress, and could not be induced, under any circumstances, to 
leave her. Sir, an aged and respectable minister said to me several years ago, when 
I stated just such a case to him, and asked him what he would do,—‘I would set 
them free,’ said he, ‘I’d wash my hands of them, and 2f they went to the devil, I’p 
BE CLEAR OF THEM.’ ”’ 


There is the philanthropy of fanaticism. To free them; if we cannot do it in any 
other way, send them to the devil—that is our mission. J am not to be understood 
as intimating for a moment that the Church as a Church, or that the members gene- 
rally entertain such opinions. JI refer to this as an instance, to show the alarming, 
unchristian results to which fanaticism leads. It would be but another, and compa- 
tively a humane step to have said: ‘‘ You masters of the South, get clear of your slaves 
by cutting their throats ;” or, “ You slaves of the South, get clear of your masters 
and become freemen by cutting their throats.” In either case the dead might go to 
heaven, which would be infinitely better than sending either master or slave to the 
devil, as one means to get rid of slavery. 

I have not time to turn your Honours’ attention to the grounds taken in relation to 


353 


the Maryland law as to the power of Mr. Harding to emancipate his negroes. He 
could not emancipate them, for the very important reason that they did not belong to 
him, but belonged to his wife. I will, however, refer to what was said by Mr. Collins 
and Mr. Griffith in the Conference of 1844 on the Harding case. One of them, Mr. 
Collins, governed I trust by conscientious considerations of duty, takes occasion to 
declare, page 42 of the Debates :— 


‘“« But he would say boldly, that if the law had been ten-fold what it is, if it had 
actually, outright and downright, without any possibility of avoiding it, taken these 
slaves from Harding’s control, the conference would still have acted just as they 
did ; because they did not intend to change their ground, and could not pretend to alter 
their views with every shifting of the legislature.” 


Your Discipline says: observe the laws of the country in which you are ; wherever 
you may be, enter not into the political turmoils of the day ; place yourselves not in 
opposition to the laws of the place in which, as the servant of God, you are minister- 
ing, for it is one of the duties of the ministry to obey the civil laws. ‘I will do no 
such thing,” says Mr. Travelling Preacher Collins ; “I will not accommodate myself 
to the shifting caprices of the legislature of the State in which I live.” Hear next 
what brother Griffith says, page 41 of the Debates :— 


“He could disentangle himself in an hour if he liked, the laws of Maryland not- 
withstanding. In point of fact the law against manumission was inoperative. It 
would be indeed strange if a freeman had not the right to make that disposal of his 
property which he might choose to make. Maryland never had said that a slave 
might be taken up and sold—she never had declared that slaves were property, and 
then in the same breath, that men should not do what they thought fit with their own 
property, and that she assumed the right to do that which she forbade the owner do- 
ing. No, sir; they know that a man has a right to set his slaves free, they know the 
illegality and imperfection of any act to the contrary, and yet they try to control it, 
and ward off the consequences by this kind of—he hardly knew how to designate 
such kind of legislation.”’ 


That is, if sincere, were fanaticism; that would be treason, if carried out by 
overt act; that, as sure as there is a God above us, would, if so carried out in opposi- 
tion to those laws, have landed Messrs. Collins and Griffith, Christian ministers as 
they are, within the limits of the Maryland penitentiary. God forbid they should 
ever be there,—because in many respects they are good men, and they have declared 
these sentiments, it is to be in charity hoped, for conscience’ sake,—but there they 
would have gone, and in vain would they have invoked the authority of their Gospel 
mission to save them, for they would find in that authority an injunction running all 
through it to preachers to observe the local municipal laws. 

A word more, and [I leave the question of necessity for the division. We have 
been told that it might have been avoided, that there was not the slightest occasion 
in the world for the division of this Church. T'o be sure the agitation had been kept 
up, and there was no promise to stop it; to be sure a preacher had been unfrocked 
because he came to be the owner of slaves, and there was no promise that the same 
thing would not be repeated in other cases ; to be sure a bishop had been degraded, 
and there was not only no promise not thereafter to degrade in such cases, but there 
was an express avowal of an authority, and almost of a duty to impeach and punish ; 
still, says my brother Choate, there was no necessity for a division. Why, says he, 
the South might have submitted. Submission is the remedy. ‘Go home, you 
Southern preachers, carry with you the evidences of your individual degradation. 
Go into your meeting-houses, and say to your brethren that, in the opinion of your 
Church, every one is unworthy in the sight of man and of God who happens to be a 


23 


354 


slaveholder. Tell them that the blessing of God has illuminated the minds of the 
Northern members of the Church, and made them at last find out the truth that such 
is your miserable degradation. We invoke you to submit. Admit self-degradation, 
admit the existence in your own persons of a moral leprosy, admit that you are steeped 
all over with sin, and submit.’’ The bishops said that Dr. Coke in 1784 attempted 
to announce and execute the same doctrine, and the single year in which he attempted 
to carry it into effect almost ruimed the Church. The bishops had announced that 
it was the opinion of this very Conference in 1836 and 1840 that the continued agi- 
tation of the subject of slavery, and the considering it as a matter of moral or religious 
sin, was bringing this Church into a condition of the most absolute ruin at the South. 
The bishops had announced in their answer to the address of the British Conference, 
that the whole Church was necessarily to observe the laws of the States in which 
slavery existed. The bishops had announced that so far from there being anything 
in the Gospel denouncing slavery, as of itself, and under all circumstances a sin, it 
was a relation to be prayed for, to be watched over, to have invoked on it the bless- 
ings of God himself. 

There, then, in submission was one mode in which the necessity might have been 
avoided, but there was not the intimation of an opinion that it was probable that sub- 
mission would, then or at any time, be adopted. There is a method left still by 
which a reunion may be brought about, but it is not by submission on the part of the 
South. If every minister in the Connexion was willing to submit, as submission 
would be self-degradation, he could not bring about a reunion of the Church, South, 
with their brethren of the Church, North. There is, however, one mode in which 
it may be brought about. I have no doubt God will bless the effort, looking to his 
past care of this Church. Abandon, preachers of the North, the ground upon which 
you acted in the case of Harding and of Andrew; go back to the doctrine of the 
Church in 1836 ; stand upon the platform declared to be the proper and religious 
platform upon which alone you had a right to stand in 1840; cease to assail your 
brethren of the South ; and you and they, to the delight of the Christian world, will 
again be one: and as long as you continue to exercise your power in that spirit of 
fraternal and religious love, you will be indivisible. 

In the Reply to the Protest, announcing the absolute necessity of a division, pag 
114, the Northern gentlemen say they had no doubt that Bishop Andrew was a ‘ very 
benevolent and Christzan master.”’ If their doctrines be right, I cannot imagine how 
a master can be a Christian at all. They say God proclaims freedom as the right of 
all, and you war against the law of God in holding a man in a state of bondage. 
Still, from courtesy, I suppose, they call Bishop Andrew a Christian master. They 
then go on to say :— 


“Tt was the almost unanimous opinion of the delegates from the non-slaveholding 
conferences that Bishop Andrew could not continue to exercise his episcopal func- 
tions under existing circumstances, without producing results extremely disastrous 
to the Church in the North; and from this opinion the brethren of the South did not 
dissent.”’ 


Then something was tobe done. What had Bishop Andrew done? Why, in the 
State of Georgia, where manumission is not tolerated, he agreed to take a negro girl, 
and if possible manumit her, and send her to Liberia. He could not do it; but, as 
far as the laws would permit, he suffered the poor girl to act as if she were free. 
Then he married a woman who had slaves. Well, but they acted leniently with 
Bishop Andrew, because he was a ‘Christian master !”” They did not expel him, 
to be sure; but what do they say they hada right todo? What is the doctrine upon 

23* 


355 


which they then stood, and stand now? Let them speak for themselves. On page 
115, Proofs No. 1, they say :— 


‘“« A diversity of sentiment existed as to the proper mode of treating the case. 

“Some at least believed—perhaps few doubted—that sufficient ground existed 
for impeachment on a charge of ‘ improper conduct,’ under the express provisions of 
the Discipline. The opinion was certainly entertained in several quarters, that it 
was ‘improper’ for the shepherd or bishop of eleven hundred thousand souls, either 
deliberately or heedlessly, to place himself in direct and irreconcilable conflict with the 
known and cherished moral sentiments of a large majority of his vast flock.” 


The minority might take care of themselves—these gentlemen are looking to the 
North alone. Are there no souls to be saved on the other side of Mason’s and Dixon’s 
‘line? Are you not willing to content yourselves with having bishops who are not 
the holders of slaves, who may by an arrangement, as between themselves and the other 
bishops, pursue the functions of bishops this side of Mason’s and Dixon’s line, in accord- 
ance with all the prejudices of the members of the Church this side of the line? Are 
you not content to leave, under that arrangement, to the bishops themselves to make 
such a provision, that the religious wants of the South may be supplied through the 
ministry of bishops who are not obnoxious to, or in irreconcilable conflict with, any 
of the moral sentiments of the South? See what the fathers of the Church told 
them. They had witnessed the angry contention, and wept over and prayed through 
the debates which characterized it. They asked that the subject might be postponed, 
to give them an opportunity of recommending some plan by which the Church might 
be saved. O! how much is it to be deplored that these gentlemen did not follow 
the advice of these their fathers! As I believe in my own existence, do I believe 
that, if their advice had been followed, the exigency in which the Church now finds 
herself, a state of comparatively hostile and angry feeling in which the members are 
arrayed against each other, would have been avoided. I will read a few sentences 
from the address of these bishops te the General Conference of 1844, during the 
pendency of Andrew’s case, but in advance of the judgment pronounced on it. 
On page 88 they say :— 


“« As they have pored over this subject with anxious thought, by day and by night, 
they have been more and more impressed with the difficulties connected therewith, 
and the disastrous results which, in their apprehension, are the almost inevitable con- 
sequences of present action on the question pending before you. 'To the undersigned 
it is fully apparent that a decision thereon, whether affirmatively or negatively, will 
most extensively disturb the peace and harmony of that widely-extended brotherhood 
which has so effectively operated for good, in the United States of America and else- 
where, during the last sixty years.” 


Again, on page 89, they say :— 


“ At this painful crisis, they have unanimously concurred in the propriety of re- 
commending the postponement of further action in the case of Bishop Andrew until 
the ensuing General Conference.” 


That would be until 1848. 


“Tt does not enter into the design of the undersigned to argue the propriety of 
their recommendation, otherwise strong and valid reasons might be adduced in its 
support. They cannot but think that if the embarrassment of Bishop Andrew should 
not cease before that time, the next General Conference, representing the pastors, 
ministers, and people of the several annual conferences, after all the facts in the case 
shall have passed in review before them, will be better qualified than the present Gene- 
ral Conference can be to adjudicate the case wisely and discreetly. Until the cessa- 


356 


tion of the embarrassment, or the expiration of the interval between the present and 
the ensuing General Conference, the undersigned believe that such a division of the 
work of the general superintendency might be made, without any infraction of a con- 
stitutional principle, as would fully employ Bishop Andrew in those sections of the 
Church in which his presence and services would be welcome and cordial.” 


No, says the Conference, the sacrifice must be made now; now must the sen- 
tence be pronounced ; he has sinned past salvation, and our sense of duty will not 
permit us to wait till 1848; now we will pronounce our judgment ; now must Bishop 
Andrew be deposed ; and now he is deposed. 

In relation to the character of the sentence passed on Bishop Andrew by the Con- 
ference of 1844, I will refer to what these Northern gentlemen say in the Conference 
of 1848, in their address upon the state of the Church. Our learned friends on the 
other side contend that this was merely an advisory measure ; that Bishop Andrew 
was still a bishop, the mitre was still upon his brow, he might exercise still the func- 
tions of a bishop, that there was nothing in what the Conference of 1844 had done to 
repudiate his authority as a bishop, and his case, therefore, constituted no reason 
whatever for the step taken by the Church, South, in 1844. The Conference of 1848, 
on page 141, says :— 


“In the mean time Bishop Soule wrote to Bishop Andrew, requesting him to re- 
sume episcopal functions, and, in the character and office of a bishop, to attend the 
sessions of annual conferences, which he did, though said act was clearly in contraven- 
tion of the expressed will of the General Conference; that he desist from the exercise 
of the episcopal office so long as the impediment of slaveholding ‘remained.’ By 
which acts both Bishop Soule and Bishop Andrew openly repudiated the authority of 
the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church.” 


Why, how do the counsel represent this matter? Is he still a bishop? Yes. 
Did they not in charity leave him a bishop? Yes. Did not they, although avowing 
their authority and almost their duty to disrobe him and depose and punish him as a 
bishop under the provision of the Discipline, which made him amenable to the Con- 
ference for improper conduct, kindly, humanely, and charitably refrain, and only 
advise him to desist from his functions? Yes. But, inasmuch as he has thought 
proper to exercise the functions which we left and intended to leave to him, he, they 
gay, openly repudiated their authority. Why, it is absurd. He did repudiate their 
authority in one sense, he went counter to the opinion of the General Conference, 
and if the General Conference had authority to pronounce that opinion, and pro- 
nounced it authoritatively, then superintending the annual conferences, after the pro- 
nunciation of the opinion and during the existence of the impediment on account of 
which it was pronounced, was an open and absolute defiance of the authority of the 
Conference. But the learned counsel give a different character to the judgment from 
these gentlemen of the Conference of 1848. 

A word now as to the conduct of the Conference in both these cases—of Harding 
and Andrew. Under the laws of the Church as they were at that time, there never 
was, to my mind, a more palpable violation of them than was committed in the judg- 
ments in these cases. We have been told that the general rule of the Church pro- 
hibited any officer of the Church from holding slaves when elected, or during the ex- 
istence of his official life; and that the general rule thereof embraced the case of a 
bishop as well as all other officers; and that it is incumbent upon us who vindicate 
the bishop to bring the case of the bishop within the limits of some exception to the 
general rule ; and that we have failed to do this because the exception embraced only 
‘travelling preachers,’ who then, in the nomenclature of this Church, are such 
preachers as contradistinguished from bishops. 


307 


I was a little surprised, though not much struck, with the ingenuity of the argu- 
ment. The counsel using it ought to have known that the Court was to look to the 
evidence in this case; but my learned brother contented himself with referring to the 
rule upon the subject of slavery, adopted in 1808 or 1812, but did not refer to the 
law upon the subject adopted in 1816, nor to the declaratory law, to be found in a 
resolution adopted by the Conference of 1840 upon what was called the Westmore- 
land petition, to which, however, I shall now particularly advert. My learned brother 
talked about the resolution of the Church in relation to the allowances to ministers, 
on page 29, of Proofs No. 1; but if he had turned to page 24, to which I ask your 
Honours’ attention, he would have found an answer, and a conclusive answer, to his entire 
argument on this point. ‘That argument was, that a bishop falling within the operation 
of the general rule which prohibited the holding of slaves by all officers in the Church, 
was not excepted from the operation of that rule by the particular exception in rela- 
tion to travelling preachers. I will not stop to argue whether in this he is right or 
wrong. ‘The particular exception, page 31, is,— 


“When any travelling preacher becomes an owner of a slave or slaves, by any 
means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character in our Church, unless he execute, if it 
be practicable, a legal emancipation of such slaves, conformably to the laws of the 
State in which he lives.” 


The learned counsel says “ travelling preacher” does not include “ bishop,” and, 
as the general rule prohibits all, the bishop remained prohibited by force of it. 
But in 1816, as the Court will see by turning to page 24, the Conference then adopted 
a rule, which forms the first of the rules on the subject in the Discipline of 1840. To 
that the counsel has not referred. It is,— 


“ We declare that we are as much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery ; 
therefore no slaveholder shall be eligible to any official station in our Church hereafter, 
where the laws of the State in which he lives will admit of emancipation and permit 
the liberated slave to enjoy freedom.” 


I presume “ any official station” covers the case of a bishop. It is not necessary 
to argue that. What does this show? The Church makes a general rule in 1784 or 
1785 declaring war against slavery as a moral evil; they cannot execute it, the very 
life of the Church is about to be sacrificed by the attempt to execute it ; it then be- 
comes the settled policy of the Church in 1808 or 1812 to recognise the laws of the 
State in which slavery exists and where emancipation is prohibited ; and it becomes 
consequently the duty of the Church to provide for the case of the travelling preacher 
in order to carry on the Church in those States in which slavery exists where eman- 
cipation is prohibited. They first except the case of the travelling preacher ; but in 
1816, alive to a more important necessity, they find that the usefulness of the Church 
depends upon the recognition, as regards every official station in the Church, of the 
laws of the States in which slavery exists and in which emancipation is prohibited, and 
they authorize any and every man to be elected to any and every official station in the 
Church, notwithstanding he is the holder of slaves, if he lives in a State where slavery 
exists and where emancipation is prohibited. Is not this clear? The words admit of 
but one interpretation. Now see what this Conference of 1840 itself said, by adopt- 
ing the resolution on pages 74 and 75. He who was then of the Church, and one of 
its brightest luminaries, as your Honours sufficiently know from the papers in evidence, 
of which he was the author, now elsewhere enjoying the reward of a well-spent and 
a religious life—Mr, Bascom—was chairman of a committee to whom the petition of 
some lay members of the Westmoreland circuit, in the Baltimore Conference, was 
referred. ‘Time after time that conference refused.to ordain preachers upon no other 


358 


ground, as it was alleged in the petition, except that the persons recommended were 
the owners of slaves. Mr. Bascom, whose opinions are perfectly well known on the 
subject, writes a report which concludes with a resolution I am about to read, in 
which he says they can do nothing to grant relief in the particular cases, because, on 


turning to the proceedings of the conference which had refused to elect these several 


ik 


ministers, no such reason was assigned, and it was not, therefore, to be assumed that 
that was the ground; but with a view to the ascertainment of what the law was in a 
case of that description, and in order to have again declared what the law was in the 
case made by the memorial, the committee wnanimously recommended the adoption 
of a declaratory resolution, and these very gentlemen who constituted the Conference 
of 1840, and many of whom were in the Conference of 1844, adopted it. I am now, 
remember, endeavouring to show that the bishop’s case came within the operation of 
the law of this Church, which said that the holding of slaves, where slavery by law 
existed, and where by law manumission was prohibited, should be no objection to a 
man’s eligibility in the first instance, or to his continuing thereafter to discharge the 
functions of any station in the Church. That resolution of 1840 was in these 
words :— 


“‘ Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences in General Con- 
ference assembled, That under the provisional exception of the general rule of the 
Church on the subject of slavery, the simple holding of slaves, or mere ownership of 
slave property, in States or territories where the laws do not admit of emancipation 
and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, constztutes no legal barrier to the elec- 
tion or ordination of ministers to the various grades of office known in the ministry of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, and cannot therefore be considered as operating any 
forfeiture of right in view of such election and ordination.” 


Is not the office of bishop a grade of ministry in the Methodist Episcopal Church ? 
The law of this Church then, solemnly reiterated as its law by a vote of the Con- 
ference of 1840, was, that where slavery did not exist no slaveholder could be elected 
to any office ; but that where slavery did exist, and emancipation was prohibited within 
the State in which the master resided, the being a slaveholder was to be no test of 
eligibility in the first instance, and no ground of forfeiture after election. Now, the 
Conference of 1844, with that law before them, depose, as we say, or censure, accord- 
ing to their own admission, Bishop Andrew, upon the ground of some general law in 
the Discipline which speaks of improper conduct, which, by a species of construction 
I cannot comprehend, they construe to mean the doing that which the very law of the 
Church authorizes to be done. ‘Improper conduct” is the word in the portion of 
the Discipline under which they act and under which they punish him. Improper 
conduct in the doing of what? Improper conduct in holding slaves when the law 
says he might hold them? Is he to forfeit his right as bishop for being the owner 
of slayes when you have said over and over again that it constitutes no objection to 
eligibility, and no ground of forfeiture? Why, that is an absolute, undefined, illimit- 
able tyranny. Keeping within the law is no protection; observing the law is no de- 
fence. ‘We, in the possession of that mighty transcendental power to be found 
under the general authority to examine into the conduct of the ministry, can convict 
you of any and every act which, according to our judgment, is improper conduct, 
although according to our laws it is proper conduct.’”’ I say, therefore, with great 
respect, that in the whole history of jurisprudence, in its actual administration 
throughout the civilized world, where duty is inculcated by law and rights are pro- 
tected by law, this is as clear and palpable an infraction of law as is to be found dis- 
gracing any of the pages of the books which illustrate the utter regardlessness of law 
in the early and dark and tyrannous ages of English jurisprudence. The English 


359 


martyrs suffered their sentences, and without a groan or the movement of a muscle 
carried with them and supported through the flames the spirit by which they were 
animated ; and these revolting sentences were perhaps, at times, pronounced by tri- 
bunals who professed, and perhaps thought, they were thereby carrying out some law 
of God, as these gentlemen preachers in the case of Bishop Andrew. But under 
such a government as that, who is safe? Bring a provision like that into the criminal 
code of the United States, and what would be the consequence? Your Honours © 
have your duties defined by statute; you may, under the law and according to the 
express terms of the law, do this, that, or the other, without objection, without for- 
feiture ; you may, under the Constitution of the United States, be slaveholders with- 
out forfeiting any political or private right that you may have. But bring upon the 
statute book of the United States a sweeping power to remove from the bench the 
lights that adorn it, and under a general authority to inquire into the conduct of 
public functionaries, to remove them, if, in the opinion of the trying body, that con- 
duct is improper; would not the blood of every citizen boil with indignation at an 
attempt to bring either of your Honours within the operation of such a power, for the 
holding of slaves which by law you are authorized to hold? And yet these gentle- 
men preachers have done precisely that very thing. Bishop Andrew was a slave- 
holder, under the law and by virtue of the law ; his rights as a bishop were protected 
by the very law which authorized him to hold slaves; and yet under this general 
sweeping authority of inquiring into the conduct of the bishops, they assumed the 
power of being wiser than the law, and of saying that, although the law authorized it, 
the thing authorized was improper, and to be punished. They go to a higher source, 
to that “higher law’? which we have heard in modern times is an authority to dis- 
obey or not carry out a constitutional law of the United States. It cannot be so. 

I was not advised until this moment that these gentlemen waked up to the con- 
sequences of having adopted the resolution on the Westmoreland petition. We find 
them in their own Conference of 1848, as will be seen by reference to the journals of 
that Conference, p. 125, rescinding that resolution :— 


“ Whereas the following resolution is found appended to the report on the West- 
moreland petition, and was adopted by the General Conference of 1840, to wit :—” 


The resolution is then recited :— 


“¢ And whereas said resolution is liable to misconstruction, and has been miscon- 
strued greatly to the prejudice of our beloved Methodism. ‘Therefore, 

“« Resolved, 1st. That said resolution be, and is hereby, rescinded. 

“Resolved, 2d. That in rescinding said resolution, we contemplate no interference 
with that section of the Discipline on slavery ; but wish simply to leave it without 
note or comment.” 


They do not even then, in 1848, pretend to interfere with the law of 1816. The 
Conference in passing that law was then speaking to itself. My friend, Mr. Choate, 
told the Court, that in all the rules on slavery, from 1784 to 1840, it was the Gene- 
ral Conference speaking to the annual conferences ; but you will see, that the reso- 
lution of 1816 is a resolution of the General Conference announcing for itself, as a 
rule for its own government, the law of the Church upon the question of slavery, 
and that is precisely what the Westmoreland resolution says; but these gentlemen, 
without giving any reason, except that it might be misunderstood, repeal the resolu- 
tion, and leave the law of 1816 to stand as when it was passed. They might very 
well have repealed that resolution, for it was a direct censure on themselves m their 
votes upon Harding’s case, and Andrew’s case; but it was no further a censure 
than the law of 1816. It was a censure, because under it the act was censurable. 


360 


Now I have a word to say upon my second point, the construction of the Plan of 
Separation, for it is really too plain for argument, although the case is made, by the 
“answer to our bill, to turn very materially upon it. In the answer,—in the argu- 
ment it was not much pressed by our friends on the other side, for they did not seem 
to think they could maintain such an extravagant proposition,—as well as in the 
review of the state of the Church made by the Conference of 1848, at Pittsburgh, 
the broad ground is taken, that the Plan of Separation under which the Southern 
Church was established, was conditional, and that the condition was the agreement 
of the conferences, by a vote of three-fourths voting, to change the sixth restrictive 
rule. There is not a word of truth init. It is so plain that I am saved from the 
necessity of detaining your Honours with discussion on the subject. The first reso- 
lution of the Plan of Separation is,— 





“‘ That, should the annual conferences in the slaveholding States find it necessary 
to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical Connexion,” 


then, a division is to be made. The only thing upon which a division is there made 
to turn is the action of the conferences in the slaveholding States. The second reso- 
lution depends exclusively upon the same thing—the action of the conferences in 
the slaveholding States. It says, contemplating the division as already made, 


“‘That ministers, local and travelling, of every grade and office in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, may, as they prefer, remain in that Church, or, without blame, 
attach themselves to the Church, South.” 


There was something else to be done. They had said that,— 


“Tn the event of a separation, a contingency to which the Declaration asks atten- 
tion as not improbable, we esteem it the duty of this General Conference to meet the 
emergency with Christian kindness and the strictest equity.”’ 


Under the first resolution they divided; under the second they permitted minis- 
ters to unite themselves with either branch of the Church: now they want to carry 
out what they believe to be right and equitable, in the event of the division for which 
they have thus prospectively provided on the single contingency of the action of the 
Southern conferences. They say, then, according to the third resolution, that if, by 
a vote of three-fourths of the members of the annual conferences, such an alteration 
be made in the sixth restrictive rule as will give power to the General Conference to 
appropriate the fund in question to other purposes than those indicated by the rule, 
then a certain portion of that fund is to be distributed between the Methodist 
Church north of the lme of division, and the Methodist Church south of the line of 
division. Then, when you come to the 9th resolution,—because the 4th, 5th, 6th, 
7th, and 8th, are only provisions as to the manner in which this equitable distribu- 
tion is to be made,—you find it provided, that all the property of the Church in the 
Southern section of the Church—in meeting-houses, parsonages, colleges, schools, 
&c.,—shall belong absolutely to the Church, South, organized under the authority of 
the first resolution. When you come to the 12th resolution you find that the action 
of the annual conferences is only to be demanded on the 3d resolution—the changing 
the sixth restrictive article m the constitution of the Church, and on no other part of 
the Plan. 

I come now to the third pomt, and in arguing it I have a right to assume, as 
proved, these propositions :—Ist. That the Conference of 1844 had a right to divide 
the Church, as they did divide it, prospectively, according to the first resolution in 
the Plan of Separation; 2d. That that division was to depend alone upon the action 
of the Southern conferences; 3d. That under that authority the Southern confer- 


361 


ences did act and the Church was divided. Now, the question is, What is to be 
done with the property? There were different kinds of property belonging to the 
Church. There was a local property, such as meeting-houses, colleges, and schools ; 
and its locality, the division being made, was to give title to it to the Church within 
whose limits it was located. There was another kind of property—the property in 
this Book Concern, amounting to about $750,000, and the chartered fund. Unlike 
the meeting-houses, parsonages, and schools, which were local property for local 
Church use, this was a general property in which all had a usufructuary interest, 
and it came into existence by the joint efforts of the North and South. It had, 
during its existence, from first to last, been administered by all for the benefit of all. 
That is to be borne in mind. It was, by express stipulation in the law of the 
Church, property held for all alike, South and North. What is the effect per se 
upon such a fund of a constitutional division of the Church, to whom, as an entire 
body, the funds belonged antecedent to the division? Why, one who is not astute 
would be at a loss to imagine any possible ground upon which it can be denied, that in 
the case of common property, belonging at first to the whole, to which each had the same 
title, and in which each had the same interest, that property must go to each ratably in 
the event of a legal, constitutional division of the whole into parts. Why, it would not 
be honest if it were otherwise. I do not mean to say, that these gentlemen admit 
they are dishonestly keeping the fund,—God forbid that I should say so,—but they 
say substantially, there is an inherent equity attaching itself to the funds and belong- 
ing to each of the two divisions into which the association is thus constitutionally 
and properly divided, that such fund shall belong ratably to each division. They 
think that in order to carry out the perfectly equitable distribution of the fund, with 
a view to the protection of the trustees, who are the holders of the fund, a change 
of the sixth restrictive article was necessary. But why did they hold that it was 
advisable te change the sixth restrictive article, im order to be clothed with the 
authority to authorize or to direct the trustees to appropriate the fund ratably to the 
two divisions of the Church? I am not left to say that the reason is obvious, be- 
cause honour, and honesty, and justice demanded it ; this very Conference say so ; 
the very men who are now holding the funds say so, if they were members of the 
Conference. In the Plan of Separation they say,— 


‘Tn the event of a separation, a contingency to which the Declaration asks atten- 
tion as not improbable, we esteem it the duty of this General Conference to meet 
the emergency with Christian kindness and the strictest equity.” 


Therefore, annual conferences, change the sixth of the restrictive rules, so as to 

allow us to do it, and we will pay to the South what we say in equity the South is 
- entitled to. 

Having demonstrated, as I hope, the constitutional authority to divide, exercised 
by the passage of the first resolution in the Plan of Division ; I say, that looking to 
the character of the fund, the only conceivable ground, and the only ground that has 
been presented against a division of the fund is, that the Plan itself agrees to a divi- 
sion only in the contingency of an agreement upon the part of the annual conferences 
to change the sixth restrictive rule, which applies to the administration of the fund. 
Let us see, as lawyers and as honest men, where that would lead us, and lead these 
gentlemen, who are undeniably as honest as others. A division of the Church has 
been brought about constitutionally ; that division, as we contend, independently of the 
particular mode provided in the Plan of Separation for the division of the fund, 
would have given to each of the branches of the Church, organized under the divi- 
sion, a right, upon general principles of equity, which a court of equity will ad- 


362 


minister, to participate ratably in the fund. That is the Southern argument. The 
other side say, that as there was provided in the Plan of Division a mode of distri- 
buting the fund, that mode cannot be now adopted, because the contingency upon 
which it was to be operative has not happened—that is, because the annual confer- 
ences did not assent to the change of the restrictive rule, the law of the land is to 
be overruled; the powers of the Court are to be limited, the principles of equity by 
which the Court is governed are not to be enforced and do not apply. Does it not 
lead us to these conclusions? You gentlemen of the Conference have tried to be 
honest, but the annual conferences will not permit you to be honest ; you have en- 
deavoured to do equity, but the annual conferences will not permit you to do equity ; 
you have brought about a condition of things which, but for your trying to be honest 
and endeavouring to do equity, would have made it the duty of this Court to make 
you honest and equitable, but now the powers of the Court are gone. Why, is 
not this absurd ? ; 

Title to a share of this fund, under the terms of the 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, ‘7th, and 8th 
resolutions of the Plan of Division, we have not made out, because that particular ap- 
propriation depended upon a change of the sixth restrictive article ; but if, without 
a change of that article, a division of the fund on principles of equity entitles each 
party to aratable proportion of the fund, then we make out title because of the 
division. If we are right, let us inquire how that division was brought about. Our 
friends on the other side say it exists in the nature of an agreement. That is a great 
mistake. In the sense of the term “agreement”? which would be applied to the 
particular Plan of Separation, it was no agreement at all which was to be enforced, 
qua-agreement, through the instrumentality of any tribunal vested by the laws with 
power to enforce inter partes agreements. That division was brought about by a 
law pronounced by a constitutional body vested with authority to legislate on the 
subject. It operated of itself, and by itself became of the constitution of these two 
Churches, without the aid of any judicial tribunal, or any general law upon the sub- 
ject. The division authorized by the first resolution of the Plan was a legislative 
act made to depend only upon the terms of that act. If we have succeeded in 
satisfying your Honours that the body passing the resolution had a legislative right 
to adopt it, then it was a legislative act made to depend, by the authority of that 
adequate legislative power, for its effective operation upon the single contingency of 
the action of the conferences in the slaveholding States, that being a condition, and 
it was €0 instanti law, not agreement. Now to say that a legislative body owning, 
in its legislative capacity, for the benefit of its entire constituency, property, and 
authorized by its legislative power to divide that constituency into two bodies, do 
not give, by the act of division, to each of the two bodies an equal right, according 
to numbers, to participate in the property, is to say that the power of dividing into 
two is a power which must necessarily work wrong and injustice to one. That 
cannot be so. 

May it please your Honours, there rests here, in the laws which you are bound 
to administer, under the chancery jurisdiction with which you are clothed, coexten- 
sive with the entire English chancery jurisdiction, an authority to see in every 
exigency in which man may be placed towards each other that justice is done. 
If the case can be brought before you in the form of a case, within the meaning of 
the term ‘‘ case,’ as you find it in that part of the Constitution of the United States 
which devolves the judicial power upon the courts of the United States, and if the 
present case between the complainants and the defendants entitles the complainants 
to relief, upon principles of equity, they must have it. Is not that our condition? 
It was our fund before 1844 as much as the defendants’; it was the proceeds of our 


363 


exertions as well as of theirs ; it was our right to participate in it to the same extent 
that it was their right. We have now, by the body of our mutual choice, in whom 
was rested our entire, original, and inherent power, agreed to divide ourselves. 
Then, the fund goes—but where? Suppose we had possession of the fund, the North 
would not be entitled to it, if they are right in holding it now against us. I could 
prove, and by argument just as strong as that which has been presented on the other 
side, that the Southern Church is the Methodist Church, within the meaning of the 
term as we have had it from the counsel on the other side. The division has sprung 
out of no innovation on our part. We stood upon the law of the Church on the 
particular point, slavery, which led to that division—that law as was declared in 1808, 
1812, and 1816, and re-affirmed in 1840. You, the defendants, have violated that 
law ; you have stepped off the platform ; you are the seceders, we are the Church. 
If the fund was in our hands, precisely upon the same process of reasoning upon 
which our learned friends rely, for the purpose of showing that the exclusive right is 
in the Northern branch of the Church, I could, unless I mistake myself, demonstrate 
that the entire right was in the Southern branch of the Church. But there is a 
fallacy in such an argument. It does not depend on the agreement to divide, if the 
effect of division, constitutionally brought about, gives a right to divide the fund. 
Can anything be plainer ? 

If the constitution of this Church as formed in 1808—and I have endeavoured to 
show the Court that it substantially and almost in terms said it—had given in so 
many terms to the Conference which might assemble in 1844, in the contingency of 
a state of things existing in 1844, such as did exist, authority to divide the Church ; 
and it was apart of the same constitution that with reference to this fund it was to be 
administered as a fund belonging to one Church, could anybody doubt that each 
branch would have been entitled to a share of the fund in the event of division. A 
contrary doctrine would make the constitution effect a high moral wrong. 

I know the tribunal I am addressing. I know that it is not necessary to caution 
such a tribunal against falling into the error into which the counsel on the other side 
have fallen, of confounding the right to participate in this fund on the part of the 
complainants consequent on the division, as a legal result growing out of the fact 
of division, with the right to participate in the particular mode pointed out by the 
Conference beforehand, for the purpose of enabling it to divide the fund im the event 
of division. If I had not the declaration of these gentlemen themselves in the Con- 
ference of 1844, that eqnity demanded an equal participation of the fund between 
the two branches, the words which instinctively dropped from the counsel would have 
demonstrated it. My learned brother who spoke first on the other side, devoted 
some fifteen or twenty minutes to the purpose of vindicating his clients against what 
was, he said, apparently a graceless position, in which they appeared to be agreeing 
to divide the Church and holding on to the funds. My brother who followed him 
yesterday told your Honours, and I have no doubt told you what he supposed to be 
true, because he seemed to be fully impressed with the equity on which our com- 
plaint rests, that if time had been allowed all would have been right. Time can do 
a great many things ; but if it was able to accomplish the end which we are now 
seeking, through the instrumentality of a court of justice, it was too slow for the 
wants of the age. They divided in 1844 ; we are now in 1851. Seven years have 
passed away, and they still hold on to the fund with a grasp which threatens, as far 
as depends on them, to be perpetual. Time scems to be no remedy. After the 
division was effected, were our superannuated preachers, their wives, widows, and 
children to wait until these gentlemen could be enlightened as to the existence of 
their obligation of distributing the fund? How long were they to wait? They 


364 


might hope on and die while they hoped. Such, too, was the instinctive sense of the 
justice of such a division of the fund here at the North, that, although the public 
mind was to a great extent poisoned upon this subject, we came within 242 votes 
of having such an alteration of the sixth restrictive rule as would have made it the 
duty of the trustees to administer the fund; and that was an alteration which was to 
be sanctioned by three-fourths of all those voting. We came to the Conference of 
1848 at Pittsburgh, in the person of our commissioners, appointed under one of the 
provisions of the Plan of Separation, to bring about an equitable division of this fund. 
These commissioners wrote them a letter, dated Pittsburgh, May 11, 1848 :— 


“ To the bishops and members of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in General Conference assembled. 

“ Rev. AND DEAR BreTHReN,—The undersigned commissioners and appointee of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, respectfully represent to your body, that 
pursuant to our appointment, and in obedience to specific instructions, we notified 
the commissioners and agents of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of our readiness 
to proceed to the adjustment of the property question, according to the Plan of 
Separation, adopted by the General Conference of 1844. And we furthermore state 
that the chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
informed us they would not act in the case, and referred us to your body for the 
settlement of the question, as to the division of the property and funds of the Church, 
And, being furthermore instructed by the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, in case of a failure to settle with your Commissioners, 
to attend the session of your body in 1848, for the ‘settlement and adjustment of all 
questions involving property and funds, which may be pending between the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ we take this 
method of informing you of our presence, and of our readiness to attend to the mat- 
ters committed to our trust and agency by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
and we desire to be informed as to the time and manner in which it may suit your 
views and convenience, to consummate with us the division of the property and funds 
of the Church, as provided for in the Plan of Separation, adopted with so much una- 
nimity by the General Conference of 1844.” 


What do you suppose was the answer received from that Conference then in 
session? No answer at all. To this communication no reply was received. But, 
says my friend who closed on the other side, why do you not wait? There are two 
modes in which, in the opinion of the eminent counsel who represent the defendants 
in this controversy, this controversy might have been avoided. One says, submis- 
sion; the other, time—wait. When did we file this bill? The letter which I have 
just read, was in 1848. We went almost i forma pauperis, certainly in the form 
of Christian poverty and Christian meekness, to ask the Conference to pay over the 
fund. That was May 11, 1848. To that letter, which was signed by “A. L. P. 
Green, C. B. Parsons, L. Pierce, Commissioners, John Early, Appointee,” as 
stated already, no reply was received. Here was almost the last resort; it has 
failed. ‘These Southern Christians—if they can be Christians, being from the sunny 
South, where some seem to suppose there is something in the heat of the atmosphere 
that burns out Christianity—had failed to get what these very Northern gentlemen 
said it was right, and just, and proper, and equitable they should have; had failed 
to get that which almost three-fourths of all the annual conferences said they ought 


to have ; had failed to get that which I venture to say nine-tenths of the laymen of 


mati 


this Church feel, and know, and say they ought to have. Then, as that resort, 
which, thank God never fails, they come to a tribunal which is clothed with the sacred 
office of doing justice between man and man. Upon the 15th of June, 1849, they 
filed this bill. What indications were there between the adjournment of the Con- 
ference of 1848, and the filing of this bill, which gave to those whom I represent 


365 


the slightest reason to imagine that there was to be any justice done them—that 
waiting would do any good? Why, look to Proofs No. 2, at the report made by the 
committee on the state of the Church in the Conference of 1848, at Pittsburgh ; see 
if in every line of it the South are not denounced as seceders and schismatics. They 
adjourned with the words of censure upon their lips. No subsequent General Con- 
ference could be assembled until 1852. The counsel who preceded me intimated 
that, possibly, if we had delayed until the assembling of the Conference of 1852, 
such a light would have been shed upon the members of the Conference who would 
then be convened—the sense of justice which animated them in 1844, the instincts of 
equity which came from their hearts in 1844, would be so awakened again—that they 
would, either cheerfully or by compulsion, carry it out, by giving to us that which 
they themselves admitted to be our right. Let those believe that who can. 

I pass to the consideration of the fourth and last point, and upon which J have but 
a very few words to say. Suppose there was no authority to divide constitutionally, 
so as to be binding of itself, as a mere act of constitutional legislation—or that the 
division was made upon a condition in relation to this property which has not been 
fulfilled—are we not still entitled to the fund? What is the attitude of the defend- 
ants? How does the Conference of 1844 stand? These gentlemen are but the 
successors of that Conference, in one sense. In 1844 they told the South, “ Gentle- 
men, a state of things now exists in the Church which, you say, if we remain 
together, will render the Church in the South useless. If our doctrines are acted 


upon in the administration of the Church, we believe, as you say, the Church in the | 


South will be annihilated ; we know that if the doctrines which you claim tobe the _ 


true doctrines upon which the Church should be administered are right, and be 
carried out, the Church in the North will be annihilated. Now, we have got power 
to divide—we will divide. We cannot live together under the same form of govern- 
ment which has heretofore blessed us, but our objects are the same ; the spread of the 
holy Gospel is the aim of each of us ; the bringing of salvation to fallen man is the 
pursuit of each of us; the carrying out of the injunction of God to preach unto all 
nations, under the delegation of his authority, in whom all power in heaven and on 
earth was vested, is upon each of us; and as we have got a right to divide, it is, as 
we think, under the circumstances, our duty to divide, to exist as separate organized 
bodies—we will divide.” We of the South, confiding, plain, simple, and unenlight- 
ened men—it is only for the sake of the argument I am willing to admit it—thought 
here was all sincerity and fair-dealing, honour and honesty, the promptings of a high 
religious obligation. They divided. They go home and organize themselves into a 
separate Church ; and the moment they do that, their former Christian brethren say, 
** Now we have gotten you off, we will hold on to the property.”’ Is that honest ? 
They have got rid of us because they said and made us believe that they concurred 
with us in thinking there was an authority to divide the Church, and to shaggyagnally 
in the property of the Church. Be 

A word or two fell from my learned brother who opened this case on the part of 
the defendants, which sounded strangely on my ear. He said that after some 
personal inquiry out of the case, as well as in the case, as it is disclosed on the 
record, he thought there were persons who voted for that division under the belief 
that by the authority over the fund, given by the power to refuse to change the sixth 
restrictive article, there was to be found a power to keep the South in the Church. 
I am sure I do not wish to do that gentleman, or his clients, injustice ; I hope that I 
am incapable of it. He said that no member who voted for the Plan of Separation 
had any idea of voting a division of the Church; that the agreement to divide was 
intended to prevent a division. In connexion with the same argument, he suggested 


—# 


Foe a 
at, f 


366 


that one of the means to be used for the purpose of preventing it was to refuse to change 
the sixth article. The power of money was to be brought to bear upon the South. 
Now they have got rid of us. Whether they know it or not, they ought to have 
known it; we had told them division was inevitable; the bishops had said the 
same thing; the Church, almost with one voice, had said the same thing. The 
question now is, whether by going off with their consent, having been seduced by their 
asserted power to authorize it, it is honest, in the consideration of a court of equity, 
to refuse to us any participation in the fund? I dare not trust myself to argue it. The 
question answers itself. 

Again, I want to know, which is the Church to whom this fund belongs? Are we 
not as much the Church as they are? ‘ You are not the Church,” say our friends, 
“because you have no ecclesiastical dominion North of a certain line ; the Church, 
in the sense of the term Church, covers the United States.” Well, if the Methodist 
Episcopal Church is the Methodist Episcopal Church which covers the United 
States by territorial jurisdiction, where is it to be found? Neither have they any 
jurisdiction in the South more than we have in the North. The two sections have 
destroyed each other. There is no Methodist Episcopal Church, if the position of 
our friends be correct. The Church existing in 1844 had annual conferences in the 
Southern States? The Church which existed in 1848 had no annual conferences in 
the South. If it be a part of your faith that the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church shall have a superintendency over the United States, and preside at the 
annual conferences of Methodists in the United States, then there is no Methodist 
Episcopal Church, because your bishops cannot go to the South; nobody there 
admits their authority. What is to be done in this state of things? The Church, 
according to your interpretation of the term Church, no longer exists; but the fund 
exists ; who is to hold it? The trustees? They do not pretend to have any right 
to it. For whom, then, are they to hold it? For those to whom it originally 
belonged. Who are they? Who are they? ‘Travelling, supernumerary, and 
superannuated preachers and bishops, and their wives, widows, and children. You 
bring them within the class of persons who, according to the terms of the original 
trust, are entitled to participate in it. If I am right m assuming that, if their doc- 
trine be correct, the Methodist Church is extinguished, and no longer exists, then 
there are no travelling, supernumerary, or superannuated preachers or bishops to 
whom the fund can be applied. The trustees, however, are to give the benefit. of 
the fund to somebody ; keeping it for themselves is out of the question. To whom, 
then, in such a case, is it to go? Suppose it was a trust fund, created by certain 
original founders. Then it goes back to the founders, if they are living. The char- 
ity, to use the language of the law, has lapsed ; the interest in the enjoyment of the 
fund by the original founder is reinstated and revived; he is to have the fund from 
the trustee ; the trustee is not to have the fund upon the failure of the existence of 
the cestique trust to whom the interest of the fund was alone to be appropriated. 
Now the donors, or rather the founders, of this fund were the preachers of the origi- 
nal Methodist Episcopal Church. It is theirs or their successors’. Equity, as I suppose, 
as there is to be a division of the fund, distributes it equally among the donors in the 
relative proportion that each has contributed, as compared with all. Then, if each of 
these donors living in the South agrees that the Southern Church shall be the trustee 
of their part of the fund, and the donors in the North agree that the Northern Church 
shall be the custodiary of their proportion of the fund, the Court can divide the fund 
between the Church North and the Church South, under this bill. 

My learned friends cited some books for the purpose of showing that the particu- 
lar relief which we ask for, under this fourth proposition, could not be given. Your 


A 
hd xf 
‘= 


367 


Honours are not to be told that it is perfectly immaterial what is the special prayer 
of the bill. The bill looks to such a division of the fund as the Plan of Separation of 
the Church contemplated. Where there is a general prayer in a bill, and a case 
made by the bill entitling to particular relief, but not to the particular relief prayed 
for, the Court can grant, under the prayer for general relief, the particular relief to 
which the party shows he is entitled. It has been so decided over and over again. 
The last decision on the subject was in the case, before the United States’ Supreme 
Court, of Taylor and The Merchants’ Insurance Company vs. Baltimore Insurance, 
where the doctrine which I have laid down was asserted as a familiar doctrine of 
equity pleading,—9 Han. Sup. Court Rep., 390. 

May it please your Honours, I am about to leave the case, and I shall do so with 
a word or two, by way of expressing a hope, in which I am but cordially uniting with 
my brothers on the other side, and which I as earnestly entertain, that this contro- 
versy may be settled. To say the least of it, it does no good, it has done no good, 
it can do no good. The members of this Church at the North cannot desire as men, 
as honest Christian men, to hold on to this fund. The very defence which their 
counsel make for them shows there would be something in such an act revolting to 
each man’s sense of justice. Is it, then, too much to hope that the government of 
the Church, North, as well as of the Church, South, may be enlightened by the dis- 
cussion this case has undergone, and by the decision which your Honours are to pro- 
nounce upon it? Is it too much to hope that each will be forced to see in the state 
of opinion in the Church and out of the Church, of all patriotic and Christian men of 
every denomination, the necessity of being roused to the consequences to result to 
the cause of religion itself from a continuance of this unhappy discussion, and be 
awakened to the very imminent hazard,—I am no alarmist, and, God knows, no dis- 
unionist,—to the very imminent hazard to which they subject the institutions which 
we have all so much reason to prize? Is it too much to hope that, when they see 
the certain consequences to their “beloved Zion,’’ and the possible consequences to 
their country, which must result from a continuance of the strife, fatal to their posi- 
tion as men, and distressing to their hearts as Christians, that they will be brought, 
even in advance of your Honours’ decision, or as speedily thereafter as can be, to 
terminate this angry and profitless contest, and to restore, in a spirit of fraternal love, 
to the Church the Christian principles and spiritual blessings which have heretofore 
made it the idol of its own worshippers, and the wonder and the pride of the Chris- 


tian world? 


he 


¥ 


¢ 


His Honour, Jupez Nexson, after consultation with Jupce Brrts, said:— 


Some time will probably elapse before the Court will be able to take up this case 
and give it the examination which it will deserve and require at our hands, prepara- 
tory to a decision in the case. Our term business is pressing upon us, and, so far as 
I myself am concerned, I shall be compelled very soon after I leave this Court to go 
into another, where I shall be engaged until mid-summer. My associate, I have no 
doubt, will be equally pressed in his particular department. Some time will neces- 
sarily elapse before we shall be in a condition to go into a consultation and examina- 
tion of the case, preparatory to a final decision. In the meantime, we cannot resist 
the desire to express our concurrence in the suggestions that have been made by the 
learned counsel on both sides, that it would be much better for the interests of this 
Church, for the interests of all concerned, if, after a full and fair investigation, both 
of the facts and the law of the case, the parties could amicably take it up, and, by the 
aid of friends and counsel, come to an amicable decision of the controversy. In the 


368 


meantime, before the case is finally taken up and disposed of by the Court, we cannot 
entertain any doubt, that after the full and fair investigation that has taken place of 
the controversy before us, whatever may be our final decision in the case, whether 
upon the one side or the other, an amicable, friendly adjustment of the controversy 
will be, and must necessarily be, more satisfactory to all parties concerned ; and that 
the good feeling and Christian fellowship of the different sections of the’ Church will 
be much better by an amicable and friendly adjustment of this controversy than by 
any legal disposition of it by the Court. 

We may also add, perhaps, that whatever may be, or may have been, the doubts 
entertained by the parties, or by their learned counsel, as it respects the power of the 
agents who have charge of the subject-matter of the controversy to make a final and 
legal disposition of this unfortunate controversy, there can probably be no reasonable 
doubt but that an amicable, and equitable, and honest adjustment made by the repre- 
sentatives of the different branches of the Church, with the aid of their counsel, sanc- 
tioned by the Court, would be a binding, and valid, and final disposition of the whole 
controversy. 

We have deemed it our duty to make these observations at the close of the argu- 
ment, not only from the fact that there will be necessarily some delay in the decision 
of the case, but in response to, and in sympathy with, the suggestions made by the 
learned counsel on both sides. 


Extract from 7 Ben. Monroe’s Reports, p. 507.—(See p. 289.) 


‘«« We come then to the case actually existing, in which, according to the assump- 
tions under which we are now considering the subject, the Church, instead of dividing 
itself into ‘the Methodist Episcopal Church, North,’ and ‘the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South,’ leaving no residuum under the name simply of ‘the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church,’ has sanctioned the independent organization of the Southern confer- 
ences, and, under that sanction, the Maysville society or congregation has been 
placed under the jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. But is 
there any difference, so far as the rights and jurisdiction of the Southern Church are 
concerned, between the case as it actually occurred and the supposed case of a 
division of the original Church into the Methodist Episcopal Church, North, and the 

Methodist Episcopal Church, South? Does the fact, that there still remains a por- 
tion, whether small or large, of the original body under the original name of the 
whole, invalidate the separation or the rights of the separating portion? Could the 
remaining portion of the original body re-assert, in the name of the whole, the juris- 
diction which had been renounced by the whole, or revoke the assent which the 
whole body had once given to the independence of the separating portion? Cer- 
tainly if the whole body had power, by its assent and co-operation, to legalize the 
separation and independence of a part of itself, the remaining portion of the original 
body, though retaining the original name of the whole, would have no power, after 
such assent had been given and acted on, to undo, by its own mere will, what the 
entire body had authorized. Whatever else may be implied from the identity of 
name, it cannot give to the present Methodist Episcopal Church a jurisdiction which 
the original Church had alienated.” 


: lead! AVA Ib Chesed eh. 


Page 
Abolition, its origin among the Metho- 
CIBC GMTETRITO:) cous te. ds heceg treacats 
Abolition, the question of, considered, yi Mr. 
TOO naa scnie es aslosies os >, sates ecient te 323 
Address of the Southern Delegates to 
members of the M. EB. Church in slave- 
holding States and Territories, 1844, (Mr. 
Lord. 
Adjustment of differences, a friendly, re- 


commended, (Af. Wood.).......2...06- S24 
AJabama Conference, preamble and reso- 
lutions adopted by, (Mr. Lord.) ........ 119 


Andrew, Bishop, discretionary position of, 

as exhibited in Minutes of Conference, 

[ Proofs, p. 124,] (Mr. Choate.) ......+.5 243 
Andrew, Bishop, from his connexion with 

slavery, is requested to desist from ac- 

tion as a Bishop, (Mr. Lord.)......... 5, 63 
Andrew, Bishop, his case reviewed, ( Wood.) 313 
——_—_——_—_——-(Johnson.) 352, 354 
, his connexion with sla- 

Wel Yan VU Obs Vnctes Wise) oxabatis ev sreieiehe albialel 312 
Andrew, Bishop, his direct violation of the 

M. E. Church Discipline, ( Wood.) ...... 314 
Andrew, Bishop, his letter to the Louisville 

Convention, May, 1845, (Zord.) ........ 120 
Andrew, Bishop, his name not omitted in 

the M. E. Hymn Book, (Lord.)......... 5 
Andrew, Bishop, his ‘‘ Pastoral Address” to 

the M. E. Church, 1845, (Lord.)........ 121 
Andrew, Bishop, his reply to Bishop Soule’s 

letter of invitation “to perform episco- 

pal functions,”? (Lord.) 
Andrew, Bishop, not a slaveholder at the 

. period of his inauguration to the SPE 

PAG, (CWVOOW.) on vale s te ce vn cis sett eae ens 
Andrew, Bishop, the case of, before ‘the 

General Conference and Committee on 
31, 62, 63 








ee) 


ancedor ie Defendants’ “Gouna ‘ad- 
verse to claims of the M. E. Church, 
South, ( Choate.) ..vercce, ssscccecvess Gol 
Arguments by Plaintiff's Counsel in sup- 
port of claims of Dr. Bascom and others 
in slaveholding States, &c., (Lord.)..... 149 
Arkansas Conference, report and resolu- 
HONSIORS (LON) s talgndie tle Fo cles sre ered ws 109 
Asbury, Bishop, ordination of, by Dr. Coke, 
(BO) Oe os Seca sleies Uae covelocvceswcles 32 


Bangs, Dr., and associate Commissioners 
M. E. Church, North, reply to communi- 
cation of Dr. Bascom, &c., 1846, (Zord.) 

Bangs, Dr., and Northern Commissioners, 
their reply to Dr. Bascom and others, 
MGC UBSRS (Zr dite racteee tates «6st hs 

Bascom, Dr., his letter to Bishop Soule, &c., 
on the Minority Protest, 1844, (Lord.).. 77 

Bascom, Dr., and others of M. E. Church, 
South, communication to Northern Com- 
missioners on division of funds, &c., 
1846, (Lord.) ...+..ceeeee ai seer stettebe L4G 


24 


Page 
Bascom, Dr., his report in the matter of the 
Westmoreland Circuit, 1840, (Johnson.) 3857 
Bascom, Dr., and Southern Commissioners, 
letter to Messrs. Bangs, Peck, and Fin- 


ROY LS4S i CHOP, Arie Pellrteci tele ne ates 104 
Beneficiaries of M. FE. Church, their rights 

CONBIGETER, . (LOrG.) 2h «ares sais viele oie ane 150 
Bascont, "Drs (WO) Seas ve shieins eee altelate 298 


Lishop, office of a, considered, (Johnson.) 358 
Bishops, address of the, to Baltimore Con- 
ference on subject of slavery—Extract, 


VQOTO.) iste cie mate aes tieie es eek en ale cea eaee 50 
Bishops, duties, regulations for, 1792, 1804, 
(Lord) sx aeinistnarcinicts a olwte aaaes cere apreletenhy 34 


Bishops of M. E. Church, conduct of, sub- 
ject to consistorialinvestigation, (Lerd.) 5 
Bishops of M. E. Church never slaveholders 


till the instance of Bp. Andrew, ( Wood.) 307 
Bishops, letter of the, to General Confer- 
ence, 1844, on case of Bishop Andrew, 
CLONGN. saiste aurea core Telaee aes /iottr ee ere ers 6+ 
Bishops should not be slaveholders, special 
objections why, ( Wood.) ............005 310 


Bishops and Presbyters, Mr. Wesley's 
opinion of their qualities and powers, 
CLOG: lone ith eesuiocn nantes a aasaten 30 
Book Concern, 1800, duties and regulations 
for government of Superintendent and 


Book-Stewards, (Lord.).......++.e00008 26 
Book Concern, distribution of profits aris- 

ing from, 1804, (Zord.) .........0.e000 27 
Book Concern, capital and profits emi wmat- 

ing from,'\(L6r'd.) 20% celts carl : 25 159; 1355 


Book Concern, funds of ri not to be di- 


i 


co 


special purposes and pythe (Choate. er 2 
Book Concern, origin and history of the, 
(Bi A SOBEL ie eric rien dp ineee 
Book Concern, portion of profitsofthe,ren- 
dered to Canada Conference on their se- 
paration from the United States Confer- 


ECNCOAULONOU) eet ape deste con as vac emis ies 166 
Book Concern, distribution of profits ac- 

eruing from, (Lord.) ......- reas 155, 203 
Book Concern ( Choate.) ...20ccceeseceees 285 


British Conference, address of the, to the 
General Conference, United States, on 


subject of slavery—Extract, (Wood.)... 308 
Canada claims, Minutes of Committee on, 
"P* VEBG UB OrUs yards <cets taladew ails s telee eee 39 


Canada Conference, letter of the, to their 
American brethren, 1833, (Lord.)...... 42 

Canadian Methodists, their prayer for se- 

paration from the United States’ General 
Conference, considered, (Lord eh OMe 36 
—$<—_———" 280 
Se . 820, 343 

Canadian Methodists, their Faded tn from 

the government of the United States 
E, Church, (Lord.) ........ 166-168, 170 


6, 


3: 


she, / 
st _ » 
4 
Nak ba ” i a 

BY gis 3 Pe INDEX. re. hae 

“a 4 is oe! * he * 

‘ by Page r Aa Page 

Capers, Dr., his motion and plan of special Conference, General, of 1824, its power to 

jurisdiction for a Northern and Southern adopt plan of division examined and 

General Conference, (Lord.)....++++++. 67 maintained, (Zord:) oe <cies cet ens 326, 360 
Carolina, North, Conference, report and Conference, General, 1848, proceedings of ~ 

resolutions Of, (Lord.) ......+.eesseeees 112 the, reviewed, (Choate.)......-+cess.0s- 282 
Carolina, South, Conference, preamble, &c., Conference, General, 1848, resolutions of, 

adopted by, (Lord.)........sseececevees 115 CHLOE A MRA) << «iss Siegloistaraioe mele vie eomrante 324. 
Change of organization in M. EH. Church, Conference, General, vote of, in matter of 

under what circumstances permissible, Bp. Andrew, (Choate.) 000. ccr.eseeeuc 245 

(TONPSON.) 0 6 si scenes elst s cee ee Seite a ee 882 Conference, ee Holston, resolutions of, in 
“Charitable Uses,”’ law of, defined, ( Wood.) 292 support of Bishops Andrew and Soule, 
Church, M. E., doctrines of, cases cited in SAG LONG etn <> Shes 54h Centers a cde ate 96 

support of adherence to, ( Wood.) ......+ 312 Conferences, Annual, of M. E. Church, 
Church, M. E., final report of state of the, their nature and functions, (Zord.)..... g 

(BQGHETN Neat css caw eae ieleee atle ts 6 219 Conference, change of organization in, 
Church, M. E., North, their answer to the 1808, (Berd) eae pep. dt silly culeicents Go 5 


judicial citation by their Southern breth- 
FON, (LOT, . o's os b's ogo c UME weele's ala ovine he 3 
Church, M. E. not empowered to author- 
ize separation or division of funds, 
COUR) eine Serene ests weenie usataa a oe 290 
nn (Wood.) 302 
Church, M. E., organization of the, South, 
decided as unconstitutional by the North- 











ern Commissioners, (Lord.)...+++++++++ 7 
Church, M. ©, origin of, extract from Bp. 
Emory’s History of, (Lord.)..........++ 82 


Church, M. E., plan of separation of the 
Northern and Southern, presented, dis- 
cussed, and adopted, 1844, (Lord.)...... 6 

Church, M. E., regulations of the, for re- 
ception of Pr eachers from Wesleyan and 
‘other Connexions, 1840, (Lord.)......++ 165 

Church, M. ., amicable separation of the 
American from that of Great Britain, 


TVG s( Dor deita hess wrbil spn liars 164, 165 
Church, M. E., South, biil of the, against 
the Northern M. E. Church, (Zord.).... 8 
Church, M. E., Unity, the great law of 
tho, ( CRORE.) 1Ad's's iss a yeb ole leisinibigaieawielelo 264 
Church and government of the Church 
distinguished, (Johnson.) ......+.e0200 835 
Church union, importance and necessity of 
enforcing and preserving, ( Wood.) ..... 313 


Claim, relative and proportionate, of the 
Plaintiffs, (W00d.) 0 +s.02.2 00 291, 292, 300 
Climatic difference, a ground for division or 
separation from Parent Church, (Lord.) 176 
Coke, Dr. T., appointed first Bishop of 
American M. EK. Church, by Mr. Wesley, 
CLOnGs Sia el aiai othe aikle's) sient sfolbieitle. shoe: Sie $2 
Coke, Dr. 'T., resolutions in the matter 
of slavery, by the Church, under the ad- 
ministration of, (Johson.)...+-.++0+0++ 351 
Commissioners, Northern, for treating with 
the Southern M. EH. Church, (Lord.) .«.. 185 
Commissioners, Southern, report of Finance 
_ Committee, Petersburg Conference, 1846, 
in reference to appointment of, for set- 
tlement of their claims on the Northern 
CHUPo I (TIOTE, ats Mes erdrnroiuihtota siwieee aierelelloiegs 103 
Committee on Separation, resolutions of, 
adopted by Tennessee Conf., (Lord.) ... 105 
Conference, the, 1784 to 1808, powers, &c., 


of, examined, (Johnson.)....seeeeee 828, 334 
Conference, the, 1784, its special creation, 
NICO is lateiellowels windatein lo, v'n'p loan ommininle Niele 267 
Conference, the Breakwater, case of fF. A. 
Harding, 1844, (Zord.)........cseceseee 57 
Conference, the first General, convened in 
United States, 1792, ( Choate.) .......... 272 
Conference, the General, powers of the, 
(FORMS ONE in< See tte tome SOTO ee RI 2x00 5 ose. 209 














( Fancher.) 209 
Conference, the General, Limitations of 
PHS) (TORSO cis lats-saharsbiobelee ante heieie so 335 
Conference, General, power of the, to con- 
sent to a division of M. E, Church into 
two bodies, (Lord.)..... Bh, iets eee 262, 0168 
Conference, (Choate.) .ecccervecceccsececs LOO 


. 


Conference, division of, proposed, and 
power of, by select Committee of Gen- 


eral Conference, (Lord.).......++.+++ 87, 838 
Conference, General, their origin and func- 
TIONS SCEGRG: \otelaate's <a oc loliteersaly Wavikwtoite 3 


Conference, General and Annual, pow “ers, 
&e., of, 1792 to 1836, (Lord.) .. 83, 177 
Conference, General, journals of the, 1840, 
1844, and 1848, mutually admitted as 
BVICENTCE,, (.LO7A,) b,-\+.s.aii< talsiale peels wen te 95 
Conferences of Kentucky, Missouri, Hol- 
ston, and Tennessee, action of the, 1845, 
(Orden wusietehiasisais + oente ech aan 140 
Conferences, Southern, 1844, action of the, 
in the case of Bp. Andrew, (Zord.)... 92-94 
Conferences, Southern, action of various, 
1845, in favour of separation from Gen- 


eral Conference, (Lord.) ...0.c-eseseees 97 
Controversial differences, evil tendenciés 
Of, (VOL ovo eae eee ae 292 


Cooper, Ezekiel, his letter to General Con- 
ference, 1818, showing how the capital 
funds accrued, (Fancher.)..- .0.ss-seseee Gal 


Degradation from Episcopal functions con- 
BIQOLEU, (IOP Oe Wate wale ial iays eae acetals eagle 197 

Difference in the M. KE. Church, not on 
fundamental doctrines, but on the ques- 
tion of right of property, ( Wood.)...... 301 

Discipline, Book of the, for 1840, to be 
considered as evidence by mutnal agree- 


MOM Gy CLG Ne bins wrakessls.0:4 lain nit ale aahevaratete rate 95 
Discipline of M. E. Church, change of 
form $n-then1 787, (2007. )< oi cigs sis toric 32 


Discipline of M. E. Church, customary 
republication of, after every General 


Conference, (F07 Gs )u..'s hiss oa cu's iets ap neg 5 
Discipline of M. KE. Church, impor tant 
character of the—quoted, (Zord.)...... 164 
Discipline, Bishop Emory’s History of the, 
passages quoted by, (Lord.)....e..sseee 30 
Discipline, 1840, extracts from, cited by 
Plaintiffs’ Counsel, (Lord.)..........05. 28 


Discipline, the publication of a Book of, 
by the Southern Conference, regarded 
as a distinct and separate organization, 


(Lid ha s.. tiem ox sie cue mys » einnalirs Le cama teipharalapaa ch 
Discount compensation, always regulated 
by General Conference, (Fancher.).....+ 228 


Division of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
even by consent of Conference, wowd 
be unauthorized by ecclesiastical law, 


CORONER Mer sien sids a 45 cies’) Siers aisle nieus anaes 261 
Division of the M. E. Church, how to have 
been avoided, (Johnson.).....e.cseueee 3,53 


Division of the M. E. Church, want of gen- 
eral agreement to, a bar to all claims 
on funds and property of such Church, . 
KIEV OOG.) nies + pws Risiaidied gtepa tite thie cine ie ini 306 
Division of the M. 8. Church impracticable, 
unless authorized by the Annual Confer- 
LDCOS, «(VOOM is' scapitnsinn iaiy si, 316, 318, 321, 822 
Division of the M. E. Church not the result 
of moral necessity, (Chodte.) ....++++0. 230 


5. 


. Page 

Division of the M. E. Church oecasioned by 
the proceedings in Conference of 1844, in 
the matter of Bp. Andrew, ( Choate.) 235, 236 

Division, plan of, igi” (John- 


PACH; )'w i: w'<.qieiti 4-a.0.5 6 sin AUN RISC ORME ale as0i0ie 338 
Division of profits of M. E. Book Concern, 
examined, (JoANSON.) ..-eseceescereces » 861 
Early, Rev. Jno., appointed General Agent 
of M. E. Church, South, by their Confer- 
ence, Virginia, 1846, (Zord.)........... 103 
Emory, Dr., passages quoted from his His- | 
tory of Discipline, (Lord.).......s-++-+.. 30 
Emory, Dr., particulars of the Book Con- a 
COLL ILO CLARY caine. 10,0 a:10s = alein 2e'm 153 
Equity of the Plaintiffs’ case examined, 
COROETE Ds Setanta o sib lc.c «0 «Save. siarw\e aint lps 258 
Florida Conference, Pree adopted by the, 
CEQA torte wins ote, 9. oi vitin AMER, <5 o,010 sighed fale'elece 118 
Forfeiture, the implication and bearing of 
this term considered, (Lord.).....-..+++ 188 


Fund, beneficiary, of M. E. Church, its 
character, &c., examined, (Zord.).. 151, 159 
Fund, beneficiary, of M. E, Church, inten- 
tion of founders of, (Lord.)......... 156, 157 
Fund, beneficiary, incapacity of the M. 
E. Church to make a division of same 
CPPOOG, ) oe avin doc eaiciete.o gees ot cM hen elmo’ 318 
Fund, beneficiary, method of augmenta- 
BON: OF, (LOT. )eieres Saks ely Beate wi aeis cia sarerns 2% 156 
Fund, beneficiary, regarded as a sacred 
trust by the M. E. Church, (Zord.) ..... 158 
Fund, beneficiary, division of, whether 
contemplated by the General Confer- 


ONCE LOT WCLONG.) > dials cis avs <1 ole vtelieisteie. ss 184 
Fund chartered, its origin and intentions, 
(Lege acs cul F ap wintas sigh Sen OeRaes Fie wie bin 155 


General grounds of the Plaintiffs’ claims 
to separation, division of profits, &c., 


(SORTESOR: sew ew ccelein. des vie deer we eWine ¢ 348 
Georgia Conference, preamble and resolu- 
tions adopted by, (Lord.)......++++-.04: 115 


Green, Rev. A. L. P., and associate Commis- 
sioners, M. HE. Church, South, letter to 
General Conference, 1848, (Zord.)...... 146 

Griffith, Rev. Mr., his position before and 
after the Conferences of 1840 and 1844, 


KQUAMIOTE Neots ceaae aegis tee teite ts are 350 
Harding, Rey. F. A., his case examined, 
a Vetaclartelsra ad tay tise eclemte sie acta ieee 241 
GCE Daa Borie pester eeriator 311 
Harding, Rev. F. A., and Bp. Andrew, ae 
judgments on, considered, (Johnson.) .. 356 


Hymn Book and Discipline, customary re- 
publication of, after every General Con- 


FOPENCE, (LO7rd.) 0. seve cecccvegarcecaeve 5 
Indian Mission Conference, resolutions 

adopted by the, (Lord.).......+..seeeee 115 
Institution of M. BE. Church, its objects and 

intents inquired into, ( Wood.),.......-. 813 
Itinerant Superintendency of Bishops of 

M. E. Church, ( Choate.).......-..+- 255, 257 


Judges Nelson and Betts, their recommen- 
dation of an amicable adjustment of the 
question at issue...........eceeeeeeeee « 367 


Maryland, extract from Dorsey’s Laws of, 
LEBEMLOTOs ):cibec's ei Ue cendvieshegeces 60, 61 
Maryland, slavery laws of, extract, (Zord.) 59 
Maysville case, extracts from decision, 
Court of Appeals, Kentucky, (Zord.).... 206 
Maysville case, extracts from, ( Wood.)... 298 





se IS ae , (Johnson.) 347 
Memphis Conference, reference to proceed- 
ings Of, (LZord.).-.csecesereees peeves et 106 


‘i INDEX. * 371 


¢ 
at ay 
. Pa 
Methodism of United States, its early ig 
termination to be one Church, ( Choate.) 2 
Methodism, its wide-spread ctttene in 


o 


United States, (CORDELE) 4: daicte ots A on wae 278 
Methodism, its character and position in 

1844, (HORNSOM. \iie ores sinia dace vide ns ~ aftaots 326 
M. FE. Church, an enterprise of: missions, 

( OROGTES) a 5. < cPosst ado Are carers gala Hah werersjeyne 279 


M. E. Church, its creation in 1784, (Choate.) 266 
M. E. Church, neyer had a slaveholding 
Bishop till the instance of Bp. Andrew, 


CWabd Sous saaae ts eae ee eee 307 
M. E. Church, unity the great law of the, 
(hoagie) ak sete es tee ee 264 


Methodists of Canada, their petition in 
1827, for separation from the M. E, Church 


of the United States, (Zord.)........... 35 
Mississippi Conference, preamble and re- 
SOLUTIONS. Of) ( LOO.) s dient oe thks <p sids.eiaite 108 


Morris, Bp., letter of, to Rev. W. 8. M’Mur- 
ray, With reasons for declining invitation 
to attend the Missouri Conference, 1845, 
(LOT Ca huiede clea sinke vakois aes lelcesinte ae 141 


Organization of Southern separate Confer- 


ences, report of Committee on, (Zord.). 123 — 


Plaintiffs’ “Right” to relative proportion 

of funds of M. E. Church, examined, 

(PROGR Vad re een aC iis cratrteale tla aoe seers 292 
PlaintiffS ‘Right’? not supported by law 

or equity, ( Wood.) OH Cl mec eaGe So. 324 
Points of Claimants, as sustaining their & 

grounds of action, (Lord.)........+-++4. 148 
Points of Defendants, on which their re- 

sistance is established, (Fancher.)...... 230 
Preachers, M. E., their fields of labour, 

( Chote. Ye PER ao the | ae aah Bette a shel es 254. 
Preachers, travelling, are Bishops to be 

considered as, (Choate.)....sssseeseeees 251 
Preachers, travelling, reasons for distinc- 

tion between the official duties, &c., of, 


( CROCE) a FES Farce ae sie ahoatee 254 
Preachers, travelling, rights and functions 

OF, PEG OMe Yaa ek FR She Wieland sule Werele sd 287 
Private trusts and public uses distinguish- 

Ody 6 Wood. acct CHMN Raat esetoteds 294 
Property, accumulated, of the M. K. Church, 

its founders and guardians, ( Wood.).... 295 


Protest, ground of the, defined, ( Choate.) . 250 
of minority of General Conference, 
1844, against action in the case of Bp. 
An@row;!(Lord.) oss aS GN y aiwecdae 69 
Protest of minority, reply to the, by the 
Committee of Northern Church, (Lord.) TT 
Protestand Reply, particulars of, reviewed, 
Ori DEBE ARS i WORciicEe oe COC SCOT 199 





Recapitulation of Plaintiffs’ case, (Johnson.) 361 

Regret, expressions of, by various Southern 
Churches on “the violent proceedings 
against Bishops,” &c., (Choate.).......+ 233 

Reply of the General Conference, United 
States, to the British Conference on sub- 


ject of slavery, cited, (Wood.)........+. 309 
Report of Committee on Division, Kentucky 
Conference, 1844, (Lord.).....+++e-eeee 92 


Report of Committe on Westmoreland Pe- 
tition, 1840, on ‘Ministerial restric- 


TONS, (LOT, ) co dae ce ce Ses Sec oie ola be 54 
Report of Committee on Separation, Hol- 

ston Conference, 1845, (Lord.)......... 95. 
Restrictive rules, origin and effects of, 

CLOTS E Real ecieten ray laatd sree stele elerate ats 3 


Restrictive rules, sixth article of, only to 
be altered by a vote of three-fourths of 
the Annual Conferences, ( Wood.)....... 315 
Restrictive rules, various alterations in, 
1828, 1832, 1836, 1840, (Zord.) ...... 43, 178 


w a -. 4 
372 * #3 4 a . "hei J 
ae) 


Secession of members from a General 
Church disqualifies all claim on the 
property of such Church, ( "WOOG. Ves. dies 305 

Secession of Southern M. E. Church self- 
authorized, ( Choate.) .......2.ssee8 259, 260 

Separation of American M. E, Church from’ 
that of Great Britain, (Choate.).. ae 20S 

Separation ef M. E. Church, incapacity 
of General Conference. _to sanction a, 

( Choate. 

Separation of M. FE. Church not sustained by 
the number of votes required, (Choate.) 146 

Separation of M. E. Church a nullity in 
ecclesiastical law, even if sanctioned by 


ee 





General Conference, (Choate.)......+++- 261 
Separation of M. E. Church, plan of the, its 

validity and effects. (Lord.)..........++ 179 
Separation of M. E. Church, plan of the, ex- 

amination of, (Choate.).......+e+eeeeeee 289 

(WOO) Goethe cdts ctor 323 

——_ UTORTREON) atiee ceiasis ols alesis 360 
Separation of M. E. Church, plan of the, in- 

fractions of the, (Fancher.).......++.++- 213 
Separation, the, by the Southern M. E. 


Church, unsanctioned by General Con- 
ference, a virtual abandonment of all 
elaim on the great body of the M. E. 
WAAL ON WOO) adie is te Saalereesele ee awe 308 
Slaveholders especially ey from ad- 


mission to membership of M. E. Church, 
; ( FORISO) 36) esi iene ROS. seein ee UleN Ea 333 
Slavery, early rules of Methodist Church 
with regard Op DI0CG. )5 sca sis wis <b ds 4, 189 


Slavery, extract from address of British 
Conference, 1840, on subject of, (Zord.) 53 
Slavery, extract from Baltimore General 
Conference, 1840, on subject of, (Lord.). 53 
Slavery, laws of, in Maryland, cited, 
(Toran nes loaee ssi iss minors el dataelsen 59, 60 
Slavery, necessity forits extirpation as con- 
sidered, 1796, 1800, 1804, 1808, 1812, 1816, 
1820, 1824, 1840, 1844, (Lord.)........ 46-49 
Slavery, not the subject of action on the 
part of Missionary Preachers, (Zord.).. 166 
Slavery, petitions and memorials respect- 
ing, from New-England and Baltimore 
Conferences, 1840, (Lord.)..... siaatalelate 192 


ek 


INDEX. 


0. ie 2 - - wert Be. % 
Slavery Question, the, as agitated in the 


is 


teat 


Page 
different Conferences, General, Quarter- 


ly, and Annual, (Johnson. Oe sanien teenie 349 
Slavery Question, as treated in Baltimore 

Conference) 1784, (Lord.)....+.-2++.+++ 45 
Slavery tion, the, treated in ‘ Disci- 

pline,”’ 16. (Lord: per ences 


Slavery Question, the, to be treated by the 
general M. E. Church only on established 


principle and usage, ( Woed.).......--. . 506 
Slavery, regarded as to its peculiar aspects, 
difficulties, RS LGN.) . scnetwiasicele estes 176 


Slavery viewed as an evil by the M. E. 
Church, North and South, (Lord.) ... 4, 190 

Soule, Bp., his address to t e Southern 
Convention, SAG ee DOT. ) neces sce orn 99 


Soule, Bp., his “letter of adhesion ” to the 


Louisville Convention, 1845, (Lord.).... 120 
Soule, Bp., his “letter ‘of invitation” to 
Bp. Andrew to pefersn episcopal fune- 
TONS, CHMMMEE) ow leleait sain ne S'sioe Bie e peieinn 137 
Southern Convention, action of the, on 
“Separate Organization,” 1845, (Lord.) 100 
Speech, opening, on behalf of the Defend- 


PIIOS, CCHOUIED) s mrala:s,cintelsina el aieieteisin are ielt 231 
Supernumeraries, conditions and duties of, 
enned; {CROAtC.) sete ws ve « wicd os esc cree 287 
- 
Tennessee Conference, preamble and reso- 
lutions adopted by, (Lord.) ...........- 142 
Trusts, administrative and specific, distinc- 
tions between, (Lord.). soe +.ssecssecees 150 
Texas Conference, report and resolutions 
adopted by, (Lord.) <0. ese. s sce vee vate 118 


Unity the great law of the M. E. Church, 
( CROCE ions caperaretein's cosa ten melt ateaiane 264 


Virginia Conference, resolutions adopted 
D Ys ULORG ists sjetslelatelste tee ain eiesmeslee oleae Sais 110 


Wesley, Rey. J., sketch of his character as 
the founder of the M. E. Church, (Johkn- 


son.) Se eerererercerees Chee eeeeecessvece 327 
- 


Ae She 
Ao nae 


ane, 
, Teak gveee 
+ 


& & 4 ig 


a 


ST e314 
Pug ee 
ane Fas canny 4 
; ’ 
























































































































































































































































Hl i Lib 
+ 


wey 





| i 


nites il % 
| HEF EE 
iitt 


an 

< 4 il iy! 
i 

iy 4 


Hl 





